Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order, Dismisses Petition Challenging Substitution of Legal Heirs in Eviction Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment dated September 27, 2023, the Delhi High Court, presided over by HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, upheld the order of the Trial Court in a case involving the substitution of legal heirs in an eviction petition. The petitioner, Shri Ram Maggo, had challenged the Trial Court's decision to allow the application filed by the legal heirs of the deceased landlady, Smt. Munto Begum.

One of the key objections raised by the petitioner was the lack of a formal application for condonation of delay in filing the substitution application. However, the High Court addressed this issue by referring to a Supreme Court judgment dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Moto W.P.(C) 3/2020, which allowed for the exclusion of a specific period for the purposes of limitation. In light of this, the objection regarding limitation was deemed untenable.

Another objection raised by the petitioner was the non-disclosure of details of all Class-I legal heirs of the deceased landlady in the application for substitution. The Trial Court had considered the original Will dated 17.09.2020, which was filed as evidence, and had allowed the application based on its contents. The High Court noted that the Trial Court's order did not suffer from any error or infirmity, and the rights of other legal heirs were specifically preserved.

The High Court further emphasized that the petitioner, who was a tenant in the property in question, lacked the locus to raise objections to the application filed by the sons of the deceased landlady under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It was suggested that the objections raised appeared to be a delay tactic in the adjudication of the application for leave to defend, which was pending before the Trial Court.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Trial Court's order, and deemed the petition to be without merit.

Representing the petitioner, Shri Ram Maggo, were advocates Mr. Rahul Kr. Singh and Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh. The judgment, while addressing the petitioner's objections, reiterated the importance of following legal procedures in matters related to substitution and eviction, ensuring that the rights of all parties involved are duly considered.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2023

SHRI RAM MAGGO  vs  SMT MUNTO BEGUM NOW DECEASED  & ORS

 

Latest Legal News