Dismissed

Gaurav Kapoor v. State & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Jul 2019TEST.CAS./41/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses an interim application seeking restoration of a testamentary case dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court found gross negligence due to the petitioner's continuous failure to file process fees, take steps for service of notices, or appear in court.

What did the court decide?

The application for restoration (I.A. 17140/2019) is dismissed for gross negligence and non-prosecution.

Gaurav Kapoor Vs State & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- TEST.CAS. 41/2017 GAURAV KAPOOR

¶4

..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE & ORS

¶7

..... Respondent Represented by: M r. Vidur Kamra, Advocate for R-2 along with respondent no.2

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶9

O R D E R % 10.01.2020

¶10

I.A. 17140/2019 (under Section 151 CPC)

¶11

By this application, the petitioner seeks restoration of the testamentary case being TEST CAS.41/2017. Before deciding this application, it would be appropriate to narrate the proceedings in the testamentary case.

¶12

The testamentary petition came up before this Court for the first time on 25^th August, 2017 when notice was issued to the respondent no.1/State and the Chief Revenue Controlling Officer besides to the respondent nos. 2 to 6. Citation was also directed to be published. The petitioner did not file any process fee and on 8^th January, 2018 i.e. this Court issued fresh notices to respondent nos. 3 to 6. As learned counsel for the respondent no.2 had entered appearance having seen the present case through a case pending in Rohini Courts between the same parties, fresh notices to respondent nos. 3 to 6 were issued, returnable for 3^rd April, 2018 when again the report was TEST.CAS. 41/2017 Page 1 of 3

¶13

that notice could not be issued to respondent nos. 3 to 6 as process fee was not filed. Moreover, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 3^rd April, 2018.

¶14

On the next date of hearing i.e. 28^th May, 2018 proxy counsel for the petitioner appeared and steps for service of respondent nos. 3 to 6 as directed had not been taken and thus fresh notice was again issued to respondent nos. 3 to 6, returnable for 23^rd August, 2018. Even on 23^rd August, 2018, the learned Joint Registrar noted that notice could not be issued to respondent nos. 3 to 6 as process fee had been returned under objection.

¶15

This Court again granted one last and final opportunity to the petitioner to take steps for the service of respondent nos. 3 to 6 through all modes subject to cost of ₹ 10,000/- . On the next date of hearing i.e. 1^st November, 2018 none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and thus the petition was simply renotified for directions on 22^nd November, 2018. On 22^nd November, 2018, learned counsel for the petitioner was present in the Court when respondent no.2 who had entered appearance and submitted that a connected matter in the form of a Commercial Matter between the same parties was pending before the learned District Courts where the petitioner took an adjournment on the ground of pendency of the present proceedings. 5. Again on the next date of hearing i.e. 1^st February, 2019 proxy counsel for the petitioner prayed for an adjournment as main counsel was in some personal difficulty.

¶16

On 11^th April, 2019, this Court noted that the petition was pending since August, 2017 and no steps have been taken by the petitioner to serve TEST.CAS. 41/2017 Page 2 of 3

¶17

the respondents and despite the order dated 1^st February, 2019, the cost as imposed was handed over only on 11^th April, 2019. On a further cost of ₹ 10,000/-, final opportunity was granted to the petitioner and notices were issued to respondent nos. 3 to 6, returnable for 28^th May, 2019. Despite the same, the petitioner neither took steps for issuance of notice nor for depositing the cost. Thus one more final opportunity was granted and the matter was listed for 5^th July, 2019. Again no steps were taken for service of respondent nos. 3 to 6. Thus the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 5^th July, 2019.

¶18

On 30^th August, 2019, the application for restoration came up before the Court in which notice was issued and was listed for 21^st October, 2019 when again none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and thus the application for restoration was also dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶19

The only explanation rendered for recall of the order dated 21^st October, 2019 is that the petitioner’s counsel noted the next date of hearing as 25^th October, 2019 and thus could not appear on 21^st October, 2019.

¶20

The narration of facts shows a continuous default on the part of the petitioner. The present case is of gross negligence. Thus this Court finds no ground for restoration of the application. Application is dismissed.

¶21

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶22

JANUARY 10, 2020 ‘hk’

¶23

Page 3 of 3

¶24

TEST.CAS. 41/2017

Gaurav Kapoor v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Kapoor v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Yadav Vs Anil @ Monu & Ors.

Jasbir Singh Vs State

Jasbir Singh Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Smt. Pooja Verma Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Naresh Verma Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sh. Jagjeet Singh @ Jony Vs State