The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which challenged a Trial Court order allowing a replication filed after a delay of approximately two years and seven months. The court observed that the delay was sufficiently explained by the COVID-19 pandemic and the demise of the original petitioner in the probate case.
Background
The dispute originated from Probate Case No. 06/2018, filed by Respondent No. 1 (now deceased and represented by legal heirs) under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The petition sought the grant of probate or letters of administration for the estate of Late Shri Ram Lal Karval based on a Will dated December 16, 2004.
On July 19, 2018, the petitioner (Mrs. Poonam Kumar), who was the respondent in the probate case, filed her objections. The Trial Court initially adjourned the matter to November 17, 2018, for filing a reply to these objections. Following subsequent adjournments, the reply/rejoinder was eventually filed on January 21, 2021.
Over a year later, on November 1, 2022, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requesting the Trial Court to treat the replication as not maintainable. The Trial Court dismissed this application on March 17, 2023, leading to the present challenge before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the replication was filed after an “inordinate delay of about two years and seven months” despite several opportunities. It was further alleged that the replication was filed with the intent to “introduce a new stand in the case” and that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the facts on record.
In opposition, the Counsel for the respondents contended that the application was a dilatory tactic to obstruct the probate proceedings. They justified the delay by citing the “death of the respondent no. 1” and the “COVID-19 pandemic,” asserting that the Trial Court’s order was well-reasoned and based on the material at hand.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, while reviewing the record, noted that although there was a significant delay in filing the reply/rejoinder, the petitioner failed to raise any timely objections.
The Court observed:
“The petitioner has not objected to the filing of the same in the trial court and, in fact, moved the present application after about one year from the date when the reply/rejoinder has been taken on record.”
The bench further pointed out that no objections were raised when the Trial Court granted opportunities or adjournments for filing the replication. Regarding the justification for the timeline, the Court noted that “the delay in filing the reply/rejoinder has also been attributable on account of the demise of respondent no. 1 and COVID-19 pandemic during that period.”
Decision
Finding no infirmity in the Trial Court’s decision, the High Court upheld the impugned order dated March 17, 2023. Justice Gupta concluded that the petition was “devoid of any merits” and dismissed it accordingly, along with any pending applications.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Mrs. Poonam Kumar v. Yash Pal Karval (Through LRs) & Ors.
- Case Number: CM(M) 600/2023 & CM APPL. 18756/2023
- Bench: Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
- Date of Decision: March 19, 2026
