Full Text
Translation output
V
\
% 12.10.2011
Present: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms.Neha Rastogi, Adv. for the
Petitioner.
Ms.Anjali Chopra,Adv.for Respondent No.1.
Mr. K.K.Buchar,Adv.for Respondent No.2.
+TR.P.(C)No.44/2011
* Respondent No.l is the sister and respondent No.2 is brother of the petitioner.
By this petition under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the
CPC, the petitioner has prayed that the probate case bearing PC
No.53/2010 titled Promod Kumar Chaufla vs. State is pending in the
Court of ADJ-VI, District Courts(Central District), Tis Hazari Courts be transferred to this Court and tried along with CS(OS) No.1156/2010 titled as Swarn Lata Kalia vs. Vinod Kumar Chaufla 85 Anr.
Respondent No.2 has filed CS(OS) No.1156/2010 against their brothers, that is, petitioner and respondent No.2 seeking, inter alia, the relief of partition of the suit property bearing No.4/66, W.E.A. Karol
Bagh, New Delhi. Respondent No.2 filed written statement in the said suit. One of the plea taken by him in the written statement is that the property devolved upon him pursuant to a will dated 17^ June, 1997, left behind by his father Late Sh.Durga Dass Chaufla.
Thereafter, it appears that respondent No.2 has filed probate case bearing No.53/2010 in the Court of District Judge in respect of the aforesaid Will. Parties involved in the probate case and the suit are
2011:DHC:18446 same inasmuch as same property is involved in both the cases.
Respondent No.l has no objection in case probate case is withdrawn from the court of District Judge and tried along with the suit. However, respondent No.2 vehemently opposes such a course on the ground that this Court and the District Judge has concurrent jurisdiction to deal with the probate case; as a matter of principle, it is the first court where a party has to seek redressal of his grievances. For this reason respondent No.2 has opted to file probate case before the District Judge which cannot be transferred to this Court and tried with the suit. He has further contended that in case probate case is tagged with the suit it will prolong the disposal ofthe probate case.
I do not find much force in these contentions. The parties in the suit as well as the suit property involved in both the cases is same.
Decision of one case will have material bearing on the other case.
Respondent No.l is claiming the partition of the suit property; whereas, as per respondent No.2 he has acquired ownership rights in the property by virtue ofthe Will dated 17^^ June, 1997. The same very Will is involved in both the cases. In this scenario,it would be appropriate if the probate case is withdrawn from the court of the District Judge and tried with the suit pending in this Court in order to avoid conflicting orders and multiplicity of proceedings.
Petition is accordingly allowed. Probate case bearing No.53/2010 titled Promod Kumar Chaufla vs. State is withdrawn from the court "of
ADJ-VI (Central District) Tis Hazari Courts and be tried along with
CS(OS) No.1156/2010 titled as Swarn Lata Kalia vs. Vinod Kumar
Chaufla 85 Anr
Next date fixed in the suit is 25th November,2011.
\
% 12.10.2011
Present: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms.Neha Rastogi, Adv. for the
Petitioner.
Ms.Anjali Chopra,Adv.for Respondent No.1.
Mr. K.K.Buchar,Adv.for Respondent No.2.
+TR.P.(C)No.44/2011
* Respondent No.l is the sister and respondent No.2 is brother of the petitioner.
By this petition under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the
CPC, the petitioner has prayed that the probate case bearing PC
No.53/2010 titled Promod Kumar Chaufla vs. State is pending in the
Court of ADJ-VI, District Courts(Central District), Tis Hazari Courts be transferred to this Court and tried along with CS(OS) No.1156/2010 titled as Swarn Lata Kalia vs. Vinod Kumar Chaufla 85 Anr.
Respondent No.2 has filed CS(OS) No.1156/2010 against their brothers, that is, petitioner and respondent No.2 seeking, inter alia, the relief of partition of the suit property bearing No.4/66, W.E.A. Karol
Bagh, New Delhi. Respondent No.2 filed written statement in the said suit. One of the plea taken by him in the written statement is that the property devolved upon him pursuant to a will dated 17^ June, 1997, left behind by his father Late Sh.Durga Dass Chaufla.
Thereafter, it appears that respondent No.2 has filed probate case bearing No.53/2010 in the Court of District Judge in respect of the aforesaid Will. Parties involved in the probate case and the suit are
2011:DHC:18446 same inasmuch as same property is involved in both the cases.
Respondent No.l has no objection in case probate case is withdrawn from the court of District Judge and tried along with the suit. However, respondent No.2 vehemently opposes such a course on the ground that this Court and the District Judge has concurrent jurisdiction to deal with the probate case; as a matter of principle, it is the first court where a party has to seek redressal of his grievances. For this reason respondent No.2 has opted to file probate case before the District Judge which cannot be transferred to this Court and tried with the suit. He has further contended that in case probate case is tagged with the suit it will prolong the disposal ofthe probate case.
I do not find much force in these contentions. The parties in the suit as well as the suit property involved in both the cases is same.
Decision of one case will have material bearing on the other case.
Respondent No.l is claiming the partition of the suit property; whereas, as per respondent No.2 he has acquired ownership rights in the property by virtue ofthe Will dated 17^^ June, 1997. The same very Will is involved in both the cases. In this scenario,it would be appropriate if the probate case is withdrawn from the court of the District Judge and tried with the suit pending in this Court in order to avoid conflicting orders and multiplicity of proceedings.
Petition is accordingly allowed. Probate case bearing No.53/2010 titled Promod Kumar Chaufla vs. State is withdrawn from the court "of
ADJ-VI (Central District) Tis Hazari Courts and be tried along with
CS(OS) No.1156/2010 titled as Swarn Lata Kalia vs. Vinod Kumar
Chaufla 85 Anr
Next date fixed in the suit is 25th November,2011.
court and list it along with CS(OS) No..1156/2010 on the date already fixed in the suit.
A.K.PATHAK,J.
October 12,2011
Bisht
A.K.PATHAK,J.
October 12,2011
Bisht
JUDGMENT