TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deciding a preliminary issue was upheld. Learned Additional District Judge had held that the petition for grant of Letters of Administration of Will dated 9.9.1991 purportedly executed by late Sh. Mohinder Singh Khandpur was not barred by limitation and was maintainable. 3. The factual position needs to be noted in a nutshell as an interesting question of law is involved for the resolution of which factual details are not relevant. 4. Appellant's stand all through was that the testator- Mohinder Singh Khandpur has expired on 5.10.1995 and the petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short the 'Act') for grant of Letters of Administration was filed on 7.8.2002, and therefore, the same was barred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for being transposed as applicants in the application but the said application was dismissed with right and liberty granted to the present respondent nos. 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate proceedings. 8. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court's view that Article 137 of the Limitation Act was not applicable is incorrect. It is submitted that right to apply in terms of Article 137 accrued when there was a dispute about genuineness of the Will. Therefore it was submitted that the view of the High Court is clearly unsustainable. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the right to apply for grant of Letters of Administrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k of expiry of prescribed period when court is closed and extension of prescribed period if applicant or the appellant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application during such period. 22. The conclusion we reach is that Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a civil court. With respect we differ from the view taken by the two- judge bench of this Court in Athani Municipal Council case 2 and hold that Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act is not confined to applications contemplated by or under the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition in the present case was to the District Judge as a court. The petition was one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated by this Court, Article 137 is clearly applicable to the petition for grant of Letters of Administration. As rightly observed by the High Court in such proceedings the application merely seeks recognition from the Court to perform a duty because of the nature of the proceedings it is a continuing right. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court referred to several decisions. One of them was S. Krishnaswami and etc. etc. v. E. Ramiah AIR1991Mad214 of the said judgment it was noted as follows: 17. In a proceeding, or in other words, in an application filed for grant of probate or letters of administration, no right is asserted or claimed by the applicant. The applicant only seeks recognition of the Court to perform a duty. Probate or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration is not covered by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Same is not correct in view of what has been stated in The Kerala State Electricity Board's case (supra). 16. Similarly reference was made to a decision of the Bombay High Court's case in Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani v. Sajni Prem Lalwani AIR1983Bom268 . Para 16 reads as follows: 16. Rejecting Mr. Dalapatrai's contention, I summarise my conclusions thus: (a) under the Limitation Act no period is advisedly prescribed within which an application for probate, letters of administration or succession certificate must be made; (b) the assumption that under Article 137 the right to apply necessarily accrues on the date of the death of the deceased, is unwarrante ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
