Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka 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