Dr. A. K. Belwal v. Shobha Joshi & Ors.

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + C.M.(M) No.74/2014 and C.M. No.1418/2014 (stay)

2. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the orders of the trial court/succession certificate court dated 27.11.2013 and 10.12.2013 whereby the petitioner was granted 2014:DHC:3370 adjournment subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- and by the order of later date the evidence of the petitioner was closed. Since the two impugned orders dated 27.11.2013 and 10.12.2013 are short orders, I reproduce the same as under:- “Order dated 27.11.2013 Statement of PW-1 Sh. Kailash Kumar Malik is recorded. He files the statement of account. Admittedly apart from the Syndicate Bank account the deceased had no other debts or securities regarding which the succession certificate has been sought. As per the statement of the Bank Manager Syndicate Bank the account no.90862010000448 was a joint account which can be operated by the other joint account holder and was in fact operated by the other joint account holder subsequent to the death of Mrs. Chitra. In these circumstances, the said account cannot be said to be a debt or security regarding which succession certificate can be granted. Adjournment is sought by the petitioner to seek instructions from another counsel. Strongly opposed by Ld. counsel for the respondents submitting that petitioner is deliberately harassing the respondents as there is no debts or security regarding which the succession certificate can be granted to the petitioner. In the interest of justice, one opportunity is given to petitioner subject to costs of Rs.1000/- each to be paid to each of the respondents on next date. Put up for further proceedings on 10.12.2013. Order dated 10.12.2013 An application is moved by the petitioner for waiving off the cost. Copy supplied. Perused, heard. Adjournment was sought by the petitioner which was strongly opposed by the respondents on the last date, therefore the cost was imposed. I find no reason to waive the cost. Application is accordingly dismissed. Even today, petitioner submits that his counsel is not available. Petitioner submits that he does not want to lead any evidence. Accordingly, PE is closed. Put up for RE if any, failing which for final arguments on 04.01.2014.”

3. A reading of the orders shows that the succession certificate was applied for by the petitioner with respect to only one bank account which was with Syndicate Bank. When the evidence of PW[1] was being recorded on behalf of present petitioner it became clear that the account was a joint account and there was no money lying in the account for any succession certificate to be granted. Accordingly, on 27.11.2013 case was adjourned and again on 10.12.2013 further adjournment was not granted and after closing the petitioner’s evidence, the case was fixed for respondent’s evidence and failing which for final arguments.

4. In a case such as the present where the succession certificate is asked for with respect to a debt which is non-existent because there are no amounts which are available in the bank account, I fail to understand what the succession certificate can be granted for.

5. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned orders and the petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JULY 21, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne