Allowed¶42

(O&M) C S Aggarwal v. General Public

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Aug 2025FAO/210/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO 210/2002 Punjab Haryana; succession certificate Kaithal; ex parte decree set aside application dismissed 27.07.2000; Will dated 07.12.1994; Will dated 02.08.1988; letters of administration Delhi High Court original jurisdiction; FAO(OS) 75/2019 disposed on counsel's statement; Section 151 CPC application allowed; Section 467 IPC forgery; Section 209 IPC false claim; cost Rs.1,00,000 Sneh Lata; amicus curiae Sanjeev Sindhwani B.S. Mor; Shanti Devi Aggarwal; Surinder Aggarwal; probate will proved disproved.

What did the court decide?

Main appeal allowed in terms of the order passed by the Delhi High Court; parties to be governed by the Delhi High Court order in FAO(OS) 75/2019; pending application(s) also disposed of. ¶42

(O&M) C S Aggarwal Vs General Public — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Main appeal allowed in terms of the order passed by the Delhi High Court; parties to be governed by the Delhi High Court order in FAO(OS) 75/2019; pending application(s) also disposed of.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the present appeal against the dismissal of the application for setting aside the ex parte succession-certificate decree survives, given that the Delhi High Court granted letters of administration under Will dated 02.08.1988 and its Division Bench disposed of FAO(OS) 75/2019 on the statement of counsel for respondent No.2-Sneh Lata.

¶42

Court's answer

Since the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has decided the matter and the dispute has been put to quietus on the statement made by counsel for respondent No.2-Sneh Lata, the present appeal is allowed in terms of the order passed by the Delhi High Court, and the parties shall be governed by the order passed by the Delhi High Court in FAO(OS) 75/2019.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the Delhi High Court judgment and order is allowed, and the judgment and order (marked as Annexures A and 8) are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FAO No.210 of 2002 (O&M) allowed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Pankaj Jain, J.). The appeal lay against the order dated 27.07.2000 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal dismissing the appellants' application to set aside the ex parte order dated 26.03.1997 granting respondent No.2 a succession certificate qua the estate of late Smt. Shanti Devi Aggarwal under Will dated 07.12.1994. Separately, the appellants had obtained letters of administration from the Delhi High Court under Will dated 02.08.1988; the quoted Delhi High Court conclusions declare that Will proved, the Wills dated 21.10.1994 and 07.12.1994 disproved, record a prima facie view of forgery attracting Sections 467 and 209 IPC, impose Rs.1,00,000/- cost on Sneh Lata and appoint amicus curiae. The intra-court appeal FAO(OS) 75/2019 against that order was disposed of on the statement of counsel for respondent No.2-Sneh Lata. Holding that the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had decided the matter and the dispute stood put to quietus, this Court allowed the appeal in terms of the Delhi High Court order, by which the parties shall be governed; the application under Section 151 CPC placing the Delhi High Court judgment and order on record was also allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

FAO No.210 of 2002 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CM No.20218-CII of 2023 in FAO No.210 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.08.2025

¶5

C.S. Aggarwal and another

¶6

....Applicant/appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

General Public and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶11

Present : Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the applicant/appellants.

¶12

Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for non-applicant/respondent No.2.

¶13

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶14

CM No.20218-CII of 2023

¶15

This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for placing on record judgment and order passed by Delhi High Court.

¶16

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. Judgment and order passed by Delhi High Court, marked as Annexures A and 8, are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶17

FAO No.210 of 2002

¶18

With the consent of counsels for the parties, the main appeal is taken on Board.

¶19

The present appeal has been filed against order dated 27.07.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal dismissing the application for setting aside order dated 26.03.1997.

¶20

Deepak Kumar 2025.08.12 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

FAO No.210 of 2002 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

An application was filed by respondent No.2 seeking succession certificate qua estate of late Smt. Shanti Devi Aggarwal w/o Assa Ram Aggarwal propounding Will, dated 07.12.1994. The same was allowed vide order dated 26.03.1997.

¶24

Thereafter, an application was filed by the present appellant for setting aside of the aforesaid ex parte decree propounding Will dated 02.08.1988 claiming the same to have been executed by Shanti Devi Aggarwal. The Application stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.07.2000.

¶25

An application was filed by the present appellant seeking letter of administration w.r.t. Will dated 02.08.1988 before the Delhi High Court.

¶26

Exercising original jurisdiction, Delhi High Court allowed the application.

¶27

The conclusions recorded in the order, read as under:

¶28

“89. The will dated 02^nd August, 1998 (Ex.P/2) executed by late Shanti Devi is 'proved' to be her last and true will.

¶29

The will dated 21^st October, 1994 set up by Surinder Aggarwal and the will dated 07^th December, 1994 set up by Sneh Lata are 'disproved' .

¶30

This petition is allowed and probate/letters of administration in respect of the will dated 02^nd August, 1998 (Ex.P/2) of late Shanti Devi is granted to the petitioner upon filing of administration and surety bonds.

¶31

This Court is of the prima facie view that Surinder Aggarwal forged the will dated 21^st October, 1994 and Sneh Lata forged the will dated 07^th December, 1994 in connivance with the witnesses mentioned in the respective wills which is an offence

¶32

Deepak Kumar 2025.08.12 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

FAO No.210 of 2002 (O&M)

¶34

¶35

under Section 467 I.P.C. The objectors have raised false claims before this Court which is an offence under Section 209 I.P.C.

¶36

The objectors have no respect for truth and have polluted the fountain of justice with tainted hands. This case warrants imposition of heavy cost as well as prosecution of the objectors.

¶37

The cost of Rs.1,00,000/- is imposed on the objector, Sneh Lata. The cost be deposited by Sneh Lata with the Registrar General of this Court within two weeks.

¶38

List for considering further directions against the objectors and the witnesses to the wills dated 21^st October, 1994 and 07^th December, 1994 on 16^th April, 2019.

¶39

Surinder Aggarwal, Sneh Lata and Gagan Singla shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.

¶40

Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate and Mr. B.S. Mor, Advocate are appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court in this matter.”

¶41

The aforesaid order granting letter of administration was challenged in an Intra Court Appeal i.e. FAO(OS) 75/2019. The appeal was disposed off on the statement made by counsel appearing for respondents. The memo of parties would show that the propounder of Will before Civil Courts at Kaithal, is the appellant in FAO before Delhi High Court.

¶42

In view of above, since Division Bench of Delhi High Court has decided the matter and the dispute has been put to quietus on the statement made by counsel for respondent No.2-Sneh Lata, the present appeal is allowed in terms of the order passed by Delhi High Court. The parties shall be governed by order passed by Delhi High Court in FAO(OS) 75/2019.

¶43

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶44

August 07, 2025 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge

¶45

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶46

Deepak Kumar 2025.08.12 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(O&M) C S Aggarwal v. General Public

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) C S Aggarwal v. General Public

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surender Vs Inderjeet Singh and Ors.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Vasdev Singh

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shinder Kaur and Ors.

Jasbir Singh Vs Mohinder Singh

Rajbir Vs Rishi Pal and Others

Union of India & Ors. Vs M/S Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.