Lalit Kumar Arora v. The State & Ors

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) %

I.A. No.______/2023 (to be numbered) (under Diary No. 946162/2023)

¶1Pursuant to the order dated 18.05.2023, the petitioner has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"] for amendment of the petition.

¶2Although the application is not listed today, a copy has been handed over in Court and is taken on Board.

¶3The Registry is directed to number the application.

¶4The application for amendment is necessitated by the fact that the petition was originally filed for probate of the document dated

22.02.2012 stated to be the Will of the petitioner's father – Mr. Kherati Lal Arora, whereas the petitioner is not the executor named in the Will. As probate cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the petitioner has filed the present application for an amendment to the effect that he be granted the Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. It is stated that the error has occurred by inadvertence.

¶5The testamentary proceedings are uncontested. It appears that the evidence led by the parties is also adequate to dispose of the petition for Letters of Administration.

¶6In the interest of justice, and in view of the statements made in the application, it is allowed and the amended petition filed therein is taken on record.

¶7The application stands disposed of.

¶1The present petition has been filed for Letters of Administration in respect of a document dated 22.02.2012 stated to be the Will of the petitioner's late father – Mr. Kherati Lal Arora.

¶2It is stated in the petition that Mr. Kherati Lal Arora died on

23.04.2021. The purported Will is a registered document. It is signed by the testator and by two witnesses namely, Mr. Tilak Gogia and Ms. Prerna Jain. There is no named executor stated in the Will.

¶3The petition states that the testator's wife, Mrs. Urmila Rani had predeceased him. Other than the plaintiff, the testator is survived by

one son, Mr. Deepak Arora, and one daughter, Mrs. Renu Madan. A second son of the testator namely, Mr. Sunil Arora, also predeceased him. The wife and two daughters of late Mr. Sunil Arora namely-Mrs. Poonam Arora, Ms. Pooja Arora, Ms. Priyanka Arora have been arrayed as respondents in the present petition.

¶4Notice was issued on 25.01.2022 and citations were also directed to be published in an English newspaper and a Hindi newspaper. The respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, being the other heirs of the testator, were present before the learned Joint Registrar on

04.05.2022 and stated that they will file their affidavits of no objection. The affidavits were filed on behalf of the said respondents on 01.06.2022 and have been placed on record. No other objections have been received pursuant to publication of citations.

¶5The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and one of the attesting witnesses namely, Mr. Tilak Gogia as PW-2.

¶6The petitioner filed an affidavit dated 29.08.2022 by way of examination-in-chief. He exhibited the death certificates of the testator, Mrs. Urmila Rani (wife of the testator) and Mr. Sunil Arora (predeceased son of the testator) [Ex.PW-1/1 and Ex.PW-1/2 respectively]. The documents demonstrate that Mrs. Urmila Rani died on 10.06.2019 and Mr. Sunil Arora died on 05.03.2015, prior to the date of death of the testator.

¶7The evidence adduced by the attesting witness, both by way of affidavit and by way of oral evidence, makes it clear that he had singed the original Will in the presence of the testator and Ms. Prerna

Jain, being the other attesting witness. The Will has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/4. PW-2 has identified his own signature, as well as the signature of the other attesting witness and the signature and thumb impression of the testator.

¶8In these circumstances, I do not find any impediment to grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, in respect of the Will dated 22.02.2012 of Mr. Kherati Lal Arora.

¶9As the petitioner is the sole beneficiary under the Will, following the judgments in Sanjay Suri vs. State1, Richa Pardeshi vs. State2, and Rajesh Sinha vs. State3, the requirement of furnishing an administration bond or surety is dispensed with.

¶10The petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions.

PRATEEK JALAN, J MAY 26, 2023 'vp/udit'/

1 2003 SCC OnLine Del 966. 2 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2978. 3 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9264.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 26th May, 2023 + LALIT KUMAR ARORA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. O.P. Gupta & Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates versus THE STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Divyam Nandrajog & Mr. Jatin Dua, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN