Allowed

Ms. Aparna Chatterjee and 2 Others v. Smt. Seema Chatterjee and 6 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2019A227/5098/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227, allowed a petition challenging a revisional order. It set aside the order directing a fresh substitution application and directed the trial court to decide the suit on merits regarding cancellation of a will and declaration of ownership.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14.05.2019 is set aside and the trial court directed to decide the suit on merits.

Ms. Aparna Chatterjee and 2 Others Vs Smt… — Succession and Inheritance | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5098 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ms. Aparna Chatterjee And 2 Others Respondent :- Smt. Seema Chatterjee And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K.Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

The instant petitioner is directed against the order dated 14.05.2019 passed by Additional district Judge, Court No.2, Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 130 of 2018 whereby it has allowed the revision, set aside the order of the trial court dated 13.09.2018, and has directed the trial court to decide the application 3-ga afresh.

¶6

The application 3-ga which has been directed to be decided afresh by the revisional court was for substituting the petitioners as legal heirs of deceased-plaintiff Bhaskar Chaterjee. The petitioners are admittedly son and daughters of the deceased-plaintiff. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for cancellation of will dated 16.12.1985 said to have been executed by late Ravindra Nath Chaterjee, his real brother. He has also prayed for a declaration that after death of his brother, he be declared owner of 1/3rd share in the suit property.

¶7

The trial court had allowed the application 3-ga on payment cost of Rs. 1,000/- and had set aside the abatement and restored the suit to its original number.

¶8

The revisional court has interfered with the order of the trial court not on the ground that the petitioners are not heirs and legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff, but on the ground of delay in filing substitution application and has directed the trial court to decide the said issue afresh.

¶9

In the opinion of the Court, once the trial court had allowed the substitution application after accepting the explanation submitted by the petitioners regarding delay in moving the substitution application and had set aside the abatement and it being not in dispute that the petitioners are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff, there was no justification on part of the revisional court to interfere with such order of the trial court in exercise of power under Section 115 C.P.C..

¶10

Learned counsel for the defendant-respondents Sri Amit Shukla

¶11

very fairly agreed that the trial court be directed to decide the suit itself on merits within specified time frame.

¶12

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the revisional court dated 14.05.2019 is set aside. The trial court shall proceed to decide the suit on merits, as expeditiously as possible.

¶13

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 11.7.2019 M. ARIF

Ms. Aparna Chatterjee and 2 Others v. Smt. Seema Chatterjee and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Aparna Chatterjee and 2 Others v. Smt. Seema Chatterjee and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Shafeeq Vs Civil Judge J.D. Thakurdwara and 2 Others

Smt. Rashmi Vs Siddhartha Kumar Singh Exe. Engineer Irrigation

Shyam Sunder Kushwaha and Another Vs Ram Chhabiley and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs Santosh Kumar

Anurag Tiwari Vs Smt. Ankita Mishra and Another

Smt. Pratima Singh Vs Piyush Kumar Singh and 9 Others