The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal regarding the manner of leading evidence in consolidated testamentary cases. Permitting a consolidated affidavit by the respondent subject to continuation of cross-examination.
Exemption in CM 44613/2016 allowed subject to exceptions; Appeal FAO(OS) 346/2016 & CM 44612/2016 disposed of on terms.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~4
RAKESH SEHGAL
..... Appellant
Through : Mr Rajat Wadhwa with Mr Kuljeet Singh and Mr Himanshu Nailwal
versus
RAVINDER KR SEHGAL & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Mr S. K. Sharma with Mr Prayas Aneja and Mr Archit
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
O R D E R
% 02.12.2016 CAV 1015/2016
The learned counsel for the respondents/caveators is present.
The caveat stands discharged.
CM 44613/2016 (exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
FAO(OS) 346/2016 & CM 44612/2016 (stay)
This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.11.2016. We have heard
the learned counsel for the parties at length. Fortunately, we will not have to give any further details of the arguments because the learned counsel for the parties have arrived at a consensus and an agreement as to the manner in which the evidence would be led. The respondent No.1 had already been examined in-chief in Testamentary Case No. 12/2011 and has been partly cross-examined also. The said testamentary case has been consolidated with four other matters – Testamentary Case 47/2010, Testamentary Case 92/2010, CS(OS) 382/2011 and
CS(OS) 553/2011. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that in view of the consolidation of all these matters, he has to tender evidence afresh. Consequently, it has been agreed that a consolidated affidavit by way of evidence shall be tendered by the respondent No.1 and he would be subjected to continuation of cross-examination by the appellant. After the cross-examination is concluded, the direction given by the learned Single Judge placing the onus of leading evidence on the plaintiff shall be complied with.
The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms. The parties shall appear
before the Local Commissioner on the date fixed.
Dasti .
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
DECEMBER 02, 2016 SR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the consolidation of testamentary cases requires the respondent to tender evidence afresh.
RAKESH SEHGAL
RAVINDER KR SEHGAL & ANR
BADAR DURREZ AHMED
ASHUTOSH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
