Full Text
Translation output
A-62
% 19.09.2011
, Present: Mr. C.S. Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
+CM (M) No. 1092/2011 & CM No. 17515/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
18.08.2011 vide which the issue/objections raised by the objector
Roshni Devi that the Court deahng with the Reference Petition which was a Reference Petition under Section 30-31 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot deal with the genuineness of the Will had been dismissed.
Proceeding pending before the learned ADJ out of which this impugned order has arisen was a Reference Petition under Section
30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act. During the pendency of proceedings, Sube Singh the original petitioner had expired; an application had been filed by his legal representatives seeking impleadment; this application was filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code. The impugned order had noted that the Court in the present proceedings can deal with the apphcation under Order 22
Rule 3 of the Code; the objection raised by the objector that in view of
% 19.09.2011
, Present: Mr. C.S. Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
+CM (M) No. 1092/2011 & CM No. 17515/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
18.08.2011 vide which the issue/objections raised by the objector
Roshni Devi that the Court deahng with the Reference Petition which was a Reference Petition under Section 30-31 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot deal with the genuineness of the Will had been dismissed.
Proceeding pending before the learned ADJ out of which this impugned order has arisen was a Reference Petition under Section
30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act. During the pendency of proceedings, Sube Singh the original petitioner had expired; an application had been filed by his legal representatives seeking impleadment; this application was filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code. The impugned order had noted that the Court in the present proceedings can deal with the apphcation under Order 22
Rule 3 of the Code; the objection raised by the objector that in view of
JUDGMENT
of this Court reported in AIR 2006 Delhi 190 Amar
Deep Singh Vs. The State & also another judgment ofthe
Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1807 T Venkata NaravmiR and others Vs. Smt Venkata Subbamna (dead) and others; it is only
2011:DHC:19489
\ the Probate Court which can deal with the authenticity o genuineness of the Will, had been repelled. Admittedly in this case there is no probate petition which is pending; it is also an admitted fact that in Delhi probate is not required. In the judgment of Amar
Deep Singh (Supa), the Court had noted that when probate petition is pending, it would be proper to await the outcome of decision of the probate petition before the Civil Court goes into the genuineness of the Will. To the same effect was the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in T. Venkata Naravana (Supra). Impugned order suffers from no infirmity.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 a
2011:DHC:19489
Deep Singh Vs. The State & also another judgment ofthe
Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1807 T Venkata NaravmiR and others Vs. Smt Venkata Subbamna (dead) and others; it is only
2011:DHC:19489
\ the Probate Court which can deal with the authenticity o genuineness of the Will, had been repelled. Admittedly in this case there is no probate petition which is pending; it is also an admitted fact that in Delhi probate is not required. In the judgment of Amar
Deep Singh (Supa), the Court had noted that when probate petition is pending, it would be proper to await the outcome of decision of the probate petition before the Civil Court goes into the genuineness of the Will. To the same effect was the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in T. Venkata Naravana (Supra). Impugned order suffers from no infirmity.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 a
2011:DHC:19489