1 to 3 had arisen only when the Probate Petition No.
It was submitted that Article 137 of the Limitation Act has clear application and the application for grant of letters of Administration was filed beyond the speculated time.
The factual position needs to be numbered in a nutshell as an interesting question of law is involved for the resolution of which factual details are number relevant.
An application was filed by the present respondent Nos.
Reliance was placed on a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of S.S. Lal v. Vishnu Mittal Goel 112 2004 DLT 877 The High Court numbered that there was numberdispute that Mrs. Nirmal Jeet Kaur had filed a Probate Petition in the companyrt of District Judge which was numbered as Probate Case No.
22 of 1996 for grant of Probate in respect of will dated 9.9.1991 after the death of Mohinder Singh Khandpur.
The order was challenged before the High Court.
The said petition was withdrawn on 9.8.1999.
22 of 1996 filed by Ms. Nirmal Jeet Kaur respondent No.
5 was withdrawn on 9.8.1999 and therefore the Petition for grant of Letters of Administration filed on 7.8.2002 was filed within three years and therefore was within time.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO 2464 of 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
Appellants 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 limitation.
Mohinder Singh Khandpur was number barred by limitation and was maintainable.
The High Court observed that Article 137 of the Limitation Act does number apply to proceedings or grant of Probate Letters of Administration and therefore the view of the learned Additional District Judge was companyrect.
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.
12488/2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant.
By the impugned order the view expressed by learned Additional District Judge deciding a preliminary issue was upheld.
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 number.
Learned Additional District Judge after referring to Section 232 of the Act held that the cause of action in favour of the respondent Nos.
Appellants stand was that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in short Limitation Act had application.
