Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, r.268 - Indian Succession Act,
1925, s.263 - Issuing of certifies copy to third party - Without giving
notice to party to suit - Sustainability - Held, perusal of r.268 of
Rules did not indicate issuance of any prior notice to party to
proceeding before considering an application of a third party for
issuance of certified copy of papers and proceedings - It was made clear
that merely because the application of the respondent for certified
copies of the papers and proceedings was allowed by Prothonotary and
Senior Master, it did not create any right or establish any right in
favour of the respondent which she proposed to claim in the proceedings
proposed to be filed - Neither any rights were created in favor of
respondent nor any rights of applicant were affected by issuance of
certified copy of proceeding, Prothonotary and Senior Master was not
bound to issue any notice or hear parties before passing such order -
Condition applicable for revocation of probate prescribed u/s. 263 of
Act could not be extended to an application for certified copy of the
probate proceedings made u/r. 268 of Rules - A perusal of record
indicated that application before Trial court made by respondent for
copy of probate was made after order was passed by Prothonotary and
Senior Master - Said application was not decided by Trial Court in view
of stay of proceedings granted by HC - Respondent should use certified
copies of papers and proceedings in probate petition only for her
personal use and would not part with copies of such proceedings in favour
of any third party.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGNAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 36 OF 2014
IN
REVIEW PETITION NO. 03 OF 2013
IN
PROBATE PETITION NO. 1388 OF 2012
Twinkle Jatin Khanna,
@ Twinkle AkshayKumar,
Versus
Anita Advani,
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA,J.
DATED : JULY 30, 2014
1. By this chamber summon the applicant seeks that the order dated 17 February
2014 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Taking Accounts rejecting the review
petition filed by the applicant be set aside and seeks that the application filed by the
respondent for certified copies of the proceedings of probate petition No. 1388 of
2012 be dismissed. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this
chamber summon are as under:-
2. Applicant is the daughter of the late Mr Rajesh Khanna who expired on 18th
July 2012. It is case of the applicant that the said deceased had left a will and
testament dated 19th June 2012 and had appointed the applicant as executrix of the
said will. The applicant filed a testamentary petition in this Court being No. 1388 of
2012 for probate of the said will. By an order dated the 6th October, 2002 this Court
allowed the said petition and granted probate in respect of the said will.
3. Sometime in the month of November 2012 the respondent filed a complaint
being complaint no. DV/25/2012 against the applicant and her family members before
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under the provisions of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act 2005. By an order dated 3rd December 2012 passed by
this Court in Criminal Petition No. 4196 of 2012 and other 2 connected matters filed
by the applicant and her family members the proceedings initiated by the respondent
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate came to be stayed.
4. On 27th November 2012 the respondent applied to the Prothonotary and Senior
Master of this Court for certified copies of the probate proceedings filed by the
applicant under rule 268 of the Bombay High Court (original side) Rules. The
respondent filed an affidavit in support of the said application along with the said
application. It is case of the applicant that the applicant was not served with a copy of
the said application and was not aware of the said application.
5. 28th of January 2013 the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master passed an
order allowing the application made by the respondent to the extent the copies of the
probate proceedings are concerned and not the probate. It is case of the applicant that
in the month of February 2013 the applicant came to know about the order passed by
the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master. On 25th of February 2013 the applicant
through her advocate lodged an objection in respect of the said order passed by the
learned Prothonotary and Senior Master. The matter was placed for directions by the
learned Prothonotary and Senior Master on 26 February 2013.
6. On 30th January 2013 the respondent filed another complaint before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate against the applicant and her family members under section
91 of the Criminal Procedure Code inter alia praying for production of original will of
Mr. Rajesh Khanna. It is case of the applicant that the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate did not take any cognizance of the said complaint.
7. On 28th of February 2013 the applicant filed her objection/written submissions
opposing the grant of certified copies and prayed for reviewing/recalling of the order
passed by the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master dated 28th of January 2013. It
is case of the applicant that the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master treated the
said objection as Review and stayed the earlier order passed by him. Both parties filed
the submissions before the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master. On 15th June
2013 the respondent raised an objection that the written submission/objections cannot
be considered as Review petition. In view of such objection raised by the respondent,
the applicant filed a review petition before the learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master praying for recalling/reviewing of the order passed by him on 28th of January
2013. The respondent filed reply to the said application.
8. On 1st October 2013 the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master passed an
order not to place the said application before him. By an administrative order passed
by the Hon'ble Chief Justice the matter came to be assigned to the learned
Commissioner for taking accounts. The learned Commissioner for taking accounts
allowed both the parties to file submissions and also heard the parties through their
learned Counsel. By an order dated 17 February 2014 the learned Commissioner for
taking accounts dismissed the said review petition. The applicant has impugned the
said order in this chamber summon.
9. Mr. Dwarkadas learned senior Counsel for the applicant submits that when a
third party, not party to the proceedings applies for certified copy of the proceedings
under rule 268 on the ground of sufficient cause, the Prothonotary and Senior Master
is bound to give a notice and an opportunity of being heard to show as to how the
grant of copies of the proceedings filed by the party to a third party would prejudice
the rights of the party to the proceedings. It is submitted that the learned
Commissioner for taking accounts has placed reliance on an alleged practice
followed by the Department internally not to issue notice when an application for
certified copies of the proceedings is made by a third party which cannot override the
requirements of the principles of natural Justice. It is submitted that even under rule
247 when a party to the proceedings applies permission to take such of the papers and
proceedings as per the procedure set out, notice has to be issued to the other party.
10. The learned senior Counsel submits that even if rule 268 does not contemplate
any hearing or notice, a party whose personal financial and other sensitive details are
ordered to be furnished to a third party, such party would be an affected party and
without any notice and hearing such party, no such personal financial and sensitive
details of such party can be furnished to a third party. Non-compliance of principles
of natural Justice by the Prothonotary and Senior Master would amount to a gross
abuse of process of law.
11. The learned senior Counsel submits that the learned Commissioner for taking
accounts failed to appreciate that the only alleged interest shown by the respondent in
her application for certified copies was that she was a live- in partner of the deceased
and the deceased had allegedly assured her to bequeath her a major portion of his
estate. The learned senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court
in case of Velusamy vs. D.Patchaiammal (2010)10 S.C.C 469 in support of his
submission that since the respondent was not qualified to enter into a legal marriage
with the said deceased, the complaint filed by the respondent before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate under the provisions of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violation Act 2005 itself is not maintainable and thus the respondent could
not have invoked the provisions of the said Act for making an application for certified
copies of the proceedings before the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master. Reliance
is placed on paragraphs 31 to 33 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court which
read thus:-
“31. In our opinion a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a
common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not
being formally married:
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to
spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage,
including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to
the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
(see 'Common Law Marriage' in Wikipedia on Google)
In our opinion a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under the
2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the
parties must have lived together in a 'shared household' as defined in
Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one
night stand would not make it a 'domestic relationship'.
32. In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a
relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of
2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must
be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a
'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual
purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a
relationship in the nature of marriage'
33. No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who
have had a live in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but
then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament
has used the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and
not 'live in relationship'. The Court in the grab of interpretation cannot
change the language of the statute.”
12. The learned senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court
in case of Ila Vipin Pandya Vs Smita A Patel (2008)7 SCC 435 and submits that third
party who applies for certified copies of the proceedings must show that he has
tangible interest which the respondent has failed to show. It is submitted that the
respondent failed to show that she had any caveatable interest or was a legal heir of
the said deceased. It is submitted that even if the will would not have been probated,
the respondent would not get any share in the property on the basis of intestacy. The
respondent has asserted her alleged rights under the provisions of Domestic Violence
Act. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Ila V
Pandya (supra) read thus:-
“13. The Division Bench has held and in our opinion rightly, that the
respondent No. 1 though caveator in the beginning had become a party
to the suit and was as such interested in the matter. It cannot be disputed
that the Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004 was filed by the
respondent No. 2 Fereshte Sethna against the appellant herein praying
therein for the action to be instituted against the appellant for perjury.
The evidence by the appellant was given in the suit itself and, therefore,
the respondent No. 1 who was a contesting party against the appellant,
was certainly interested person since the allegations of perjury were
made against her adversary, the appellant herein. When the respondent
No. 1 sought for the certified copies, it was not necessary to decide the
merits or the demerits of the Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004. If
she had shown as to how she was interested in the Miscellaneous
Application and if such interest was tangible, then even if she was not a
party in the strict sense to the Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004,
the Prothonotary and Senior Master could have, in his discretion,
granted the certified copies of the Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of
2004. Though a view was taken by the learned Single Judge that she was
not at all interested and she could not be interested, the Division Bench
has shown as to how she would be interested in the Miscellaneous
Application No. 1 of 2004. Therefore, even if it is held that she was not
a party to the matter, i.e., Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004,
since she was a party to the suit out of which the Miscellaneous
Application No. 1 of 2004 emanated and as such the same could be
treated as record of that suit, the Division Bench, in our opinion, was
right in taking the view that she was entitled to the certified copies.
14. Shri Nariman, learned Senior Counsel, however, suggested that
the only idea of having those copies was to harass and/or to misuse
those copies against the appellant and it was only for that reason
that the appellant was opposing the grant of certified copies of the
Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004 to the respondent No. 1. We
do not think that there is any possibility of misuse. It has not been
shown as to in what manner the respondent No. 1 would be able to
misuse the said documents. Shri Nariman, however, expressed his
apprehension that the respondent No. 1 would insist in joining the
proceedings which were to follow the Miscellaneous Application No.
1 of 2004. He, therefore, expressed that if the respondent is granted
the certified copies, she would jump into the fray in Miscellaneous
Application No. 1 of 2004. The Division Bench has taken care of that
matter. In paragraph 9 of its order, the Division Bench has
expressed and in our opinion, very rightly that by mere grant of
certified copies, it cannot be construed that respondent No. 1 has a
right to participate in the perjury application. The Division Bench
has already directed that the said application should be heard along
with the main suit. The Division Bench has also very rightly
expressed that ultimately it would be for the learned Judge to
decide the issue as to whether respondent No. 1 can join the
proceedings. That question had been left open. Again the Division
Bench has clarified that the issue regarding the evidentiary value of
papers and documents in the perjury proceedings was kept to be
agitated by both sides. At this juncture, however, the main suit itself
stands decided and the parties before us did not point out anything
about Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004 nor was it pointed out
as to whether it was still pending or not. But even if it is presumed
that it is still pending, we make it clear that mere grant of certified
copies in favour of the respondent No. 1 itself would not entitle her
to take part in the proceedings and confirm the action of the
Division Bench of keeping that question open. As far as the misuse
is concerned, we only have to observe that in case of its misuse, the
court below would be fully free to deal with such complaint if made
to it.”
13. Learned senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in
case of Krishnakumar Birla VS Rajendra Singh Lodha (2008) 4 SCC 300 in support of
his submission that even if petition is filed under section 263 of the Indian succession
Act by the respondent she will have no right to file such petition and thus the learned
Prothonotary and Senior Master could not have passed an order for issuance of the
certified copies of the proceedings in favour of the respondent.
14. It is submitted by the learned senior Counsel that even if the learned
Prothonotary and Senior Master is granted a discretionary power under rule 268, such
discretionary power has to be exercised reasonably and with caution after giving
notice and hearing. In support of this proposition the learned senior Counsel placed
reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Consumer Action Group Vs
State of Tamilnadu (2000)7 SCC 425.
15. It is submitted by the learned senior Counsel that the respondent had filed
similar application for certified copy of the probate in the criminal proceedings which
proceedings are stayed by this Court. The learned Prothonotary and Senior Master
therefore ought to have considered these facts before allowing the application of the
respondent for certified copy of the proceedings. It is submitted that though the
respondent had mentioned in her application that criminal proceedings filed by her
against the applicant and her family members was pending, the learned Prothonotary
and Senior Master did not think it necessary to issue notice to the applicant before
allowing the application of the respondent. The learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master ought to have considered that any such order would have affected the rights of
the applicant and her family members.
16. It is submitted by the learned senior Counsel that the reasons rendered by the
learned Commissioner for taking accounts that if the submission of the applicant is
accepted, notice will be required to be issued to every party concerned is erroneous.
It is submitted that valuable right of a party cannot be taken away on the ground that
there would be floodgate of notices required to be issued. Reliance is placed on the
judgment of Supreme Court in case of Coal India Ltd Vs Saroj Kumar Mishra
(2007)9SCC 625.
17. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submits
that the respondent had applied for certified copy of the probate proceedings and the
probate on the ground that the respondent wanted to file a petition for revocation of
the probate obtained by the applicant and her family members fraudulently and by
committing forgery. The said deceased had assured the respondent that he would
bequeath share in the property of the said deceased. It is submitted by the learned
Counsel that the criminal proceedings filed by the respondent against the applicant
and her family members and that this application for certified copy of the probate
proceedings are totally different. It is submitted that since the applicant has obtained
the probate on such forged will of the said deceased by committing a fraud, such order
passed by this Court is illegal and nonest. Reliance is placed on the judgment of
Supreme Court in case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath (AIR 1994 SC 853).
18. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that even if the probate Court gives
finding about caveatable interest it has limited effect and cannot deprive such party to
seek revocation of probate u/s 263 of the Indian Succession Act 1925. Reliance is
placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Elizabeth Anthony Vs Mchel
Charles John Chown Lengera (1990) 3 SCC 333. The learned Counsel also placed
reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of G. Gopal Vs C.Bhaskar
(2008)10 SCC 489 in support of his submission that even if a party has the slightest
interest in the estate of the testator, he is entitled to file caveat and contest the grant of
probate of the will of the testator. It is submitted that the respondent has tangible
interest in the estate of the said deceased. In any event the learned Commissioner for
taking accounts has not decided the caveatable interest of the respondent. It is
submitted that under rule 268 there is no procedure for issuance of any notice by the
Prothonotary and Senior Master before issuance of such certified copies. It is
submitted that once the Prothonotary and Senior Master was satisfied with the
sufficient cause shown by the respondent and has exercised his discretion, this Court
shall not interfere with such discretion exercised by the learned Prothonotary and
Senior Master.
19. Rule 267, 268 and 271 of the High Court(OS) Rules are
extracted as under:-
“267. Search and certified copies of documents to a party to suit or
matter :- The Prothontoary and Senior Master shall, on the application of
any party to a suit or matter, allow such or grant certified copies of all
papers and proceedings in the suit or matter, on payment of the
prescribed fees and charges. When the party applies for a certified copy
of a part of a document on record, the Prothonotary and Senior Master
may, in his discretion, grant such copy.
268. Search and Certified copies of documents to a person not a party to
suit or matter :- The Prothonotary and Senior Master may, on the
application of a person not a party to a suit or matter, on sufficient cause
being shown, allow search or grant certified copies of such papers and
proceedings in the suit or matter as the Prothonotary and Senior Master
may think fit, on payment of the prescribed fees and charges. When such
person applies for a certified copy of a part of a document on record, the
Prothonotary and Senior Master may, in his discretion, grant such copy.
271. Application to state whether copy of required for private use or
otherwise : Every application for a certified copy shall state whether the
copy is required for the private use of the person applying for it or
otherwise. When the certified copy is required for a purpose other than
private use, the requisite Court fee under Article 24, 25 and 2 of Schedule
II to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, shall be paid in addition to the
fees prescribed by rule 20.”
20. A perusal of the application filed by the respondent before the Prothonotary and
Senior Master for certified copy of the probate proceedings indicates that it was case
of the respondent that the applicant and her family members have forged and
fabricated the will of the said deceased. She had proposed to file a petition for the
revocation of the probate obtained by the applicant and her family members. The
respondent has already filed a petition under the provisions of the Domestic Violence
Act against the applicant and the family members. It is case of the respondent that the
respondent was the live in partner of the said deceased and had been living with him
and co-habited as man and wife under the same roof at the address at Ashirwad
bungalow and also at New Delhi. It is case of the respondent that the said deceased
had expressed on numerous occasions that he was going to bequeath major portion of
his property to her.
21. Supreme Court in case of Ila Vipin Pandya (supra) has interpreted 267 and 268
of the High Court rules and it is held that while there is a clear cut right in favour of
the party to the suit to get the search and certified copies, there is a discretion in
Prothonotary and Senior Master to grant or not such search and/or certified copy to a
person who is not a party to the suit or matter. It is held by the Supreme Court that the
grant of certified copies in favour of a party would not entitle her to take part in the
proceedings. The division bench of the Bombay High Court had held that by grant of
certified copies it cannot be construed that such party has a right to participate in the
perjury application.
22. A perusal of the record indicates that on the respondent making an application
for certified copy of the record and proceedings, the Master (ADMINISTRATION)
(CERTIFIED COPY BRANCH) of submitted a report before the Prothonotary and
Senior Master for the appropriate order whether to grant certified copy of the entire
proceedings and the order passed by this Court to the respondent or not. A perusal of
the endorsement made on the said report indicates that the learned Prothonotary and
Senior Master has passed an order that the respondent be issued only record and
proceedings and not the probate.
23. The learned Commissioner for taking accounts in the impugned order after
hearing the parties and after considering the submissions made by both parties has
summarized the procedure for issuance of a certified copy on the application of the
third party. Such third party has to file an affidavit along with the application and has
to state therein the cause for which the certified copy of the particulars papers and
proceedings are required by such third party. It is held that as per the prevalent
practice the subject of issuance of certified copy is between the third party applicant
and the Prothonotary and Senior Master. In that context the learned officer has held
that if the submission of the applicant is accepted notice would be required in every
matter on receipt of any such application from a third party.
24. It is held that at the stage of considering an application for certified copies, it is
not necessary for the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master to decide the merits or
de-merits of the proposed revocation petition or any other legal proceedings proposed
to be filed by the respondent. It is held by the learned Commissioner for taking
accounts that the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master had passed the order on the
office submission made to that effect as per the prevalent practice and procedure and
after going through the contents of the affidavit of the respondent made in support
thereof and after being satisfied has passed an order for issuance of certified copy only
of the papers and proceedings and not the probate.
25. It is not in dispute that the applicant had filed an objection before the
Prothonotary and Senior Master when she came to know about the order. The
applicant thereafter filed in review petition before the learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master for recalling of the earlier order. It is not in dispute that the learned
Commissioner for taking accounts granted opportunity to both the parties to file
submissions and had heard both the parties at length. Though the respondent had
raised an issue of maintainability of the review petition, the learned Commissioner for
taking accounts without going into the issue of maintainability decided the matter on
merits and rejected the Review petition. The learned Commissioner for taking
accounts has complied with the principles of natural Justice.
26. Question however that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the
learned Prothonotary and Senior Master was bound to issue notice to the applicant,
the original petitioner in the probate petition before considering the application of the
respondent for issuance of certified copy. A perusal of rule 268 indicates that if the
third party applies before the Prothonotary and Senior Master for search or grant of
certified copies of the papers and proceedings in any suit or matter on payment of the
prescribed fee and charges and if sufficient cause is shown, the Prothonotary and
Senior Master has discretionary power to grant certified copy of the record and
proceedings.
27. The respondent had already filed an affidavit along with such application for
certified copies before the Prothonotary and Senior Master stating reasons as to why
she required such copies. The respondent had already filed criminal proceedings
against the applicant and her family members. The respondent required the papers and
proceedings for the purpose of filing a petition for revocation of the probate obtained
by the applicant and her family members. The learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master has not decided the issue as to whether respondent would have locus to file
such petition or not. In my view merely because the learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master having been satisfied with the sufficient cause shown by the respondent and
has passed an order for issuance of certified copy of the papers and proceedings, it
would not cause any prejudice to the applicant or her family members in any manner
whatsoever. By the impugned order the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master or by
the learned Commissioner for taking accounts has not decided the rights if any which
the respondent proposes to claim in the proceedings proposed to be filed by the
respondent.
28. A perusal of the other provisions of High Court rules indicates that when any
such notice is required to be issued by the Prothonotary and Senior Master to any
party, there is specific provision in that regard. A perusal of rule 268 however does not
indicate issuance of any prior notice to a party to the proceeding before considering
an application of a third party for issuance of certified copy of the papers and
proceedings. In my view the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master having
exercised his discretion on having been satisfied that sufficient cause was shown for
issuance of certified copies, this Court shall not interfere with such discretion
exercised by the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master.
29. It is held by the Supreme Court in case of Basanti Devi Vs Ravi Prakash
Ramprasad Jaiswal(2008)1 SCC 267 that an application for grant of probate is a
proceeding in rem and a probate when granted not only binds all the parties before the
Court but also binds all other persons in all proceedings arising out of the will or
claims under or connected therewith. In my view the interest of the applicant thus
cannot be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever merely because the learned
Prothonotary and Senior Master ordered issuance of certified copy of the papers and
proceedings. It is made clear that merely because the application of the respondent for
certified copies of the papers and proceedings is allowed by the learned Prothonotary
and Senior Master, it does not create any right or establish any right in favour of the
respondent which she proposes to claim in the proceedings proposed to be filed. If
any proceedings are filed by the respondent for revocation of the probate or any of the
proceedings the same shall be decided on its own merits. In my view since neither
any rights are created in favour of the respondent nor any rights of the applicant are
affected by issuance of certified copy of the proceeding, the learned Prothonotary and
Senior Master was not bound to issue any notice or hear the parties before passing
such order.
33. I am not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned senior Counsel for the
applicant that unless the respondent was able to show that she had a caveatable
interest in the estate of the deceased, the Prothonotary and Senior Master could not
have allowed certified copies of the papers and proceedings in the probate matter. In
my view the condition applicable for revocation of probate prescribed under section
263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 cannot be extended to an application for
certified copy of the probate proceedings made under rule 268 of the High Court
rules. I am thus not dealing with the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by
both parties on the issue of caveatable interest. Since the respondent has not
challenged the order on the ground of maintainability of review petition, I need not
deal with the said issue in this order.
34. In so far as submission of the learned senior counsel that the respondent had
already made a separate application for copy of the probate before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate which proceedings are stayed by this court, learned
Prothonotary could not have passed an order for issuance of certified copy of the
probate proceedings is concerned, a perusal of the record indicates that the
application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate made by the respondent for
copy of the probate was made after order was passed by the Prothonotary and Senior
Master. Be that as it may, the said application was not decided by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate in view of the stay of the proceedings granted by this court.
In any event, both the proceedings are different.
35. It is made clear that the respondent shall use the certified copies of the papers
and proceedings in the probate petition only for her personal use in accordance with
the rule 271 and will not part with copies of such proceedings in favour of any third
party. In my view the chamber summons is devoid of any merits and deserves to be
rejected. I therefore pass the following order:-
36. Chamber summon is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. The learned
learned Prothonotary and Senior Master to act on authenticated copy of this order.
37. Dr. Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the applicant seeks continuation of the
ad interim order passed by this court which is opposed by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent. Application for continuation of stay is refused.
(R.D. DHANUKA, J.)
Print Page
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGNAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 36 OF 2014
IN
REVIEW PETITION NO. 03 OF 2013
IN
PROBATE PETITION NO. 1388 OF 2012
Twinkle Jatin Khanna,
@ Twinkle AkshayKumar,
Versus
Anita Advani,
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA,J.
DATED : JULY 30, 2014
1. By this chamber summon the applicant seeks that the order dated 17 February
2014 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Taking Accounts rejecting the review
petition filed by the applicant be set aside and seeks that the application filed by the
respondent for certified copies of the proceedings of probate petition No. 1388 of
2012 be dismissed. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this
chamber summon are as under:-
2. Applicant is the daughter of the late Mr Rajesh Khanna who expired on 18th
July 2012. It is case of the applicant that the said deceased had left a will and
testament dated 19th June 2012 and had appointed the applicant as executrix of the
said will. The applicant filed a testamentary petition in this Court being No. 1388 of
2012 for probate of the said will. By an order dated the 6th October, 2002 this Court
allowed the said petition and granted probate in respect of the said will.
3. Sometime in the month of November 2012 the respondent filed a complaint
being complaint no. DV/25/2012 against the applicant and her family members before
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under the provisions of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act 2005. By an order dated 3rd December 2012 passed by
this Court in Criminal Petition No. 4196 of 2012 and other 2 connected matters filed
by the applicant and her family members the proceedings initiated by the respondent
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate came to be stayed.
4. On 27th November 2012 the respondent applied to the Prothonotary and Senior
Master of this Court for certified copies of the probate proceedings filed by the
applicant under rule 268 of the Bombay High Court (original side) Rules. The
respondent filed an affidavit in support of the said application along with the said
application. It is case of the applicant that the applicant was not served with a copy of
the said application and was not aware of the said application.
5. 28th of January 2013 the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master passed an
order allowing the application made by the respondent to the extent the copies of the
probate proceedings are concerned and not the probate. It is case of the applicant that
in the month of February 2013 the applicant came to know about the order passed by
the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master. On 25th of February 2013 the applicant
through her advocate lodged an objection in respect of the said order passed by the
learned Prothonotary and Senior Master. The matter was placed for directions by the
learned Prothonotary and Senior Master on 26 February 2013.
6. On 30th January 2013 the respondent filed another complaint before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate against the applicant and her family members under section
91 of the Criminal Procedure Code inter alia praying for production of original will of
Mr. Rajesh Khanna. It is case of the applicant that the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate did not take any cognizance of the said complaint.
7. On 28th of February 2013 the applicant filed her objection/written submissions
opposing the grant of certified copies and prayed for reviewing/recalling of the order
passed by the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master dated 28th of January 2013. It
is case of the applicant that the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master treated the
said objection as Review and stayed the earlier order passed by him. Both parties filed
the submissions before the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master. On 15th June
2013 the respondent raised an objection that the written submission/objections cannot
be considered as Review petition. In view of such objection raised by the respondent,
the applicant filed a review petition before the learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master praying for recalling/reviewing of the order passed by him on 28th of January
2013. The respondent filed reply to the said application.
8. On 1st October 2013 the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master passed an
order not to place the said application before him. By an administrative order passed
by the Hon'ble Chief Justice the matter came to be assigned to the learned
Commissioner for taking accounts. The learned Commissioner for taking accounts
allowed both the parties to file submissions and also heard the parties through their
learned Counsel. By an order dated 17 February 2014 the learned Commissioner for
taking accounts dismissed the said review petition. The applicant has impugned the
said order in this chamber summon.
9. Mr. Dwarkadas learned senior Counsel for the applicant submits that when a
third party, not party to the proceedings applies for certified copy of the proceedings
under rule 268 on the ground of sufficient cause, the Prothonotary and Senior Master
is bound to give a notice and an opportunity of being heard to show as to how the
grant of copies of the proceedings filed by the party to a third party would prejudice
the rights of the party to the proceedings. It is submitted that the learned
Commissioner for taking accounts has placed reliance on an alleged practice
followed by the Department internally not to issue notice when an application for
certified copies of the proceedings is made by a third party which cannot override the
requirements of the principles of natural Justice. It is submitted that even under rule
247 when a party to the proceedings applies permission to take such of the papers and
proceedings as per the procedure set out, notice has to be issued to the other party.
10. The learned senior Counsel submits that even if rule 268 does not contemplate
any hearing or notice, a party whose personal financial and other sensitive details are
ordered to be furnished to a third party, such party would be an affected party and
without any notice and hearing such party, no such personal financial and sensitive
details of such party can be furnished to a third party. Non-compliance of principles
of natural Justice by the Prothonotary and Senior Master would amount to a gross
abuse of process of law.
11. The learned senior Counsel submits that the learned Commissioner for taking
accounts failed to appreciate that the only alleged interest shown by the respondent in
her application for certified copies was that she was a live- in partner of the deceased
and the deceased had allegedly assured her to bequeath her a major portion of his
estate. The learned senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court
in case of Velusamy vs. D.Patchaiammal (2010)10 S.C.C 469 in support of his
submission that since the respondent was not qualified to enter into a legal marriage
with the said deceased, the complaint filed by the respondent before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate under the provisions of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violation Act 2005 itself is not maintainable and thus the respondent could
not have invoked the provisions of the said Act for making an application for certified
copies of the proceedings before the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master. Reliance
is placed on paragraphs 31 to 33 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court which
read thus:-
“31. In our opinion a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a
common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not
being formally married:
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to
spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage,
including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to
the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
(see 'Common Law Marriage' in Wikipedia on Google)
In our opinion a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under the
2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the
parties must have lived together in a 'shared household' as defined in
Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one
night stand would not make it a 'domestic relationship'.
32. In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a
relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of
2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must
be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a
'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual
purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a
relationship in the nature of marriage'
33. No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who
have had a live in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but
then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament
has used the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and
not 'live in relationship'. The Court in the grab of interpretation cannot
change the language of the statute.”
12. The learned senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court
in case of Ila Vipin Pandya Vs Smita A Patel (2008)7 SCC 435 and submits that third
party who applies for certified copies of the proceedings must show that he has
tangible interest which the respondent has failed to show. It is submitted that the
respondent failed to show that she had any caveatable interest or was a legal heir of
the said deceased. It is submitted that even if the will would not have been probated,
the respondent would not get any share in the property on the basis of intestacy. The
respondent has asserted her alleged rights under the provisions of Domestic Violence
Act. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Ila V
Pandya (supra) read thus:-
“13. The Division Bench has held and in our opinion rightly, that the
respondent No. 1 though caveator in the beginning had become a party
to the suit and was as such interested in the matter. It cannot be disputed
that the Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004 was filed by the
respondent No. 2 Fereshte Sethna against the appellant herein praying
therein for the action to be instituted against the appellant for perjury.
The evidence by the appellant was given in the suit itself and, therefore,
the respondent No. 1 who was a contesting party against the appellant,
was certainly interested person since the allegations of perjury were
made against her adversary, the appellant herein. When the respondent
No. 1 sought for the certified copies, it was not necessary to decide the
merits or the demerits of the Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004. If
she had shown as to how she was interested in the Miscellaneous
Application and if such interest was tangible, then even if she was not a
party in the strict sense to the Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004,
the Prothonotary and Senior Master could have, in his discretion,
granted the certified copies of the Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of
2004. Though a view was taken by the learned Single Judge that she was
not at all interested and she could not be interested, the Division Bench
has shown as to how she would be interested in the Miscellaneous
Application No. 1 of 2004. Therefore, even if it is held that she was not
a party to the matter, i.e., Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004,
since she was a party to the suit out of which the Miscellaneous
Application No. 1 of 2004 emanated and as such the same could be
treated as record of that suit, the Division Bench, in our opinion, was
right in taking the view that she was entitled to the certified copies.
14. Shri Nariman, learned Senior Counsel, however, suggested that
the only idea of having those copies was to harass and/or to misuse
those copies against the appellant and it was only for that reason
that the appellant was opposing the grant of certified copies of the
Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004 to the respondent No. 1. We
do not think that there is any possibility of misuse. It has not been
shown as to in what manner the respondent No. 1 would be able to
misuse the said documents. Shri Nariman, however, expressed his
apprehension that the respondent No. 1 would insist in joining the
proceedings which were to follow the Miscellaneous Application No.
1 of 2004. He, therefore, expressed that if the respondent is granted
the certified copies, she would jump into the fray in Miscellaneous
Application No. 1 of 2004. The Division Bench has taken care of that
matter. In paragraph 9 of its order, the Division Bench has
expressed and in our opinion, very rightly that by mere grant of
certified copies, it cannot be construed that respondent No. 1 has a
right to participate in the perjury application. The Division Bench
has already directed that the said application should be heard along
with the main suit. The Division Bench has also very rightly
expressed that ultimately it would be for the learned Judge to
decide the issue as to whether respondent No. 1 can join the
proceedings. That question had been left open. Again the Division
Bench has clarified that the issue regarding the evidentiary value of
papers and documents in the perjury proceedings was kept to be
agitated by both sides. At this juncture, however, the main suit itself
stands decided and the parties before us did not point out anything
about Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004 nor was it pointed out
as to whether it was still pending or not. But even if it is presumed
that it is still pending, we make it clear that mere grant of certified
copies in favour of the respondent No. 1 itself would not entitle her
to take part in the proceedings and confirm the action of the
Division Bench of keeping that question open. As far as the misuse
is concerned, we only have to observe that in case of its misuse, the
court below would be fully free to deal with such complaint if made
to it.”
13. Learned senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in
case of Krishnakumar Birla VS Rajendra Singh Lodha (2008) 4 SCC 300 in support of
his submission that even if petition is filed under section 263 of the Indian succession
Act by the respondent she will have no right to file such petition and thus the learned
Prothonotary and Senior Master could not have passed an order for issuance of the
certified copies of the proceedings in favour of the respondent.
14. It is submitted by the learned senior Counsel that even if the learned
Prothonotary and Senior Master is granted a discretionary power under rule 268, such
discretionary power has to be exercised reasonably and with caution after giving
notice and hearing. In support of this proposition the learned senior Counsel placed
reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Consumer Action Group Vs
State of Tamilnadu (2000)7 SCC 425.
15. It is submitted by the learned senior Counsel that the respondent had filed
similar application for certified copy of the probate in the criminal proceedings which
proceedings are stayed by this Court. The learned Prothonotary and Senior Master
therefore ought to have considered these facts before allowing the application of the
respondent for certified copy of the proceedings. It is submitted that though the
respondent had mentioned in her application that criminal proceedings filed by her
against the applicant and her family members was pending, the learned Prothonotary
and Senior Master did not think it necessary to issue notice to the applicant before
allowing the application of the respondent. The learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master ought to have considered that any such order would have affected the rights of
the applicant and her family members.
16. It is submitted by the learned senior Counsel that the reasons rendered by the
learned Commissioner for taking accounts that if the submission of the applicant is
accepted, notice will be required to be issued to every party concerned is erroneous.
It is submitted that valuable right of a party cannot be taken away on the ground that
there would be floodgate of notices required to be issued. Reliance is placed on the
judgment of Supreme Court in case of Coal India Ltd Vs Saroj Kumar Mishra
(2007)9SCC 625.
17. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submits
that the respondent had applied for certified copy of the probate proceedings and the
probate on the ground that the respondent wanted to file a petition for revocation of
the probate obtained by the applicant and her family members fraudulently and by
committing forgery. The said deceased had assured the respondent that he would
bequeath share in the property of the said deceased. It is submitted by the learned
Counsel that the criminal proceedings filed by the respondent against the applicant
and her family members and that this application for certified copy of the probate
proceedings are totally different. It is submitted that since the applicant has obtained
the probate on such forged will of the said deceased by committing a fraud, such order
passed by this Court is illegal and nonest. Reliance is placed on the judgment of
Supreme Court in case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath (AIR 1994 SC 853).
18. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that even if the probate Court gives
finding about caveatable interest it has limited effect and cannot deprive such party to
seek revocation of probate u/s 263 of the Indian Succession Act 1925. Reliance is
placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Elizabeth Anthony Vs Mchel
Charles John Chown Lengera (1990) 3 SCC 333. The learned Counsel also placed
reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of G. Gopal Vs C.Bhaskar
(2008)10 SCC 489 in support of his submission that even if a party has the slightest
interest in the estate of the testator, he is entitled to file caveat and contest the grant of
probate of the will of the testator. It is submitted that the respondent has tangible
interest in the estate of the said deceased. In any event the learned Commissioner for
taking accounts has not decided the caveatable interest of the respondent. It is
submitted that under rule 268 there is no procedure for issuance of any notice by the
Prothonotary and Senior Master before issuance of such certified copies. It is
submitted that once the Prothonotary and Senior Master was satisfied with the
sufficient cause shown by the respondent and has exercised his discretion, this Court
shall not interfere with such discretion exercised by the learned Prothonotary and
Senior Master.
19. Rule 267, 268 and 271 of the High Court(OS) Rules are
extracted as under:-
“267. Search and certified copies of documents to a party to suit or
matter :- The Prothontoary and Senior Master shall, on the application of
any party to a suit or matter, allow such or grant certified copies of all
papers and proceedings in the suit or matter, on payment of the
prescribed fees and charges. When the party applies for a certified copy
of a part of a document on record, the Prothonotary and Senior Master
may, in his discretion, grant such copy.
268. Search and Certified copies of documents to a person not a party to
suit or matter :- The Prothonotary and Senior Master may, on the
application of a person not a party to a suit or matter, on sufficient cause
being shown, allow search or grant certified copies of such papers and
proceedings in the suit or matter as the Prothonotary and Senior Master
may think fit, on payment of the prescribed fees and charges. When such
person applies for a certified copy of a part of a document on record, the
Prothonotary and Senior Master may, in his discretion, grant such copy.
271. Application to state whether copy of required for private use or
otherwise : Every application for a certified copy shall state whether the
copy is required for the private use of the person applying for it or
otherwise. When the certified copy is required for a purpose other than
private use, the requisite Court fee under Article 24, 25 and 2 of Schedule
II to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, shall be paid in addition to the
fees prescribed by rule 20.”
20. A perusal of the application filed by the respondent before the Prothonotary and
Senior Master for certified copy of the probate proceedings indicates that it was case
of the respondent that the applicant and her family members have forged and
fabricated the will of the said deceased. She had proposed to file a petition for the
revocation of the probate obtained by the applicant and her family members. The
respondent has already filed a petition under the provisions of the Domestic Violence
Act against the applicant and the family members. It is case of the respondent that the
respondent was the live in partner of the said deceased and had been living with him
and co-habited as man and wife under the same roof at the address at Ashirwad
bungalow and also at New Delhi. It is case of the respondent that the said deceased
had expressed on numerous occasions that he was going to bequeath major portion of
his property to her.
21. Supreme Court in case of Ila Vipin Pandya (supra) has interpreted 267 and 268
of the High Court rules and it is held that while there is a clear cut right in favour of
the party to the suit to get the search and certified copies, there is a discretion in
Prothonotary and Senior Master to grant or not such search and/or certified copy to a
person who is not a party to the suit or matter. It is held by the Supreme Court that the
grant of certified copies in favour of a party would not entitle her to take part in the
proceedings. The division bench of the Bombay High Court had held that by grant of
certified copies it cannot be construed that such party has a right to participate in the
perjury application.
22. A perusal of the record indicates that on the respondent making an application
for certified copy of the record and proceedings, the Master (ADMINISTRATION)
(CERTIFIED COPY BRANCH) of submitted a report before the Prothonotary and
Senior Master for the appropriate order whether to grant certified copy of the entire
proceedings and the order passed by this Court to the respondent or not. A perusal of
the endorsement made on the said report indicates that the learned Prothonotary and
Senior Master has passed an order that the respondent be issued only record and
proceedings and not the probate.
23. The learned Commissioner for taking accounts in the impugned order after
hearing the parties and after considering the submissions made by both parties has
summarized the procedure for issuance of a certified copy on the application of the
third party. Such third party has to file an affidavit along with the application and has
to state therein the cause for which the certified copy of the particulars papers and
proceedings are required by such third party. It is held that as per the prevalent
practice the subject of issuance of certified copy is between the third party applicant
and the Prothonotary and Senior Master. In that context the learned officer has held
that if the submission of the applicant is accepted notice would be required in every
matter on receipt of any such application from a third party.
24. It is held that at the stage of considering an application for certified copies, it is
not necessary for the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master to decide the merits or
de-merits of the proposed revocation petition or any other legal proceedings proposed
to be filed by the respondent. It is held by the learned Commissioner for taking
accounts that the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master had passed the order on the
office submission made to that effect as per the prevalent practice and procedure and
after going through the contents of the affidavit of the respondent made in support
thereof and after being satisfied has passed an order for issuance of certified copy only
of the papers and proceedings and not the probate.
25. It is not in dispute that the applicant had filed an objection before the
Prothonotary and Senior Master when she came to know about the order. The
applicant thereafter filed in review petition before the learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master for recalling of the earlier order. It is not in dispute that the learned
Commissioner for taking accounts granted opportunity to both the parties to file
submissions and had heard both the parties at length. Though the respondent had
raised an issue of maintainability of the review petition, the learned Commissioner for
taking accounts without going into the issue of maintainability decided the matter on
merits and rejected the Review petition. The learned Commissioner for taking
accounts has complied with the principles of natural Justice.
26. Question however that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the
learned Prothonotary and Senior Master was bound to issue notice to the applicant,
the original petitioner in the probate petition before considering the application of the
respondent for issuance of certified copy. A perusal of rule 268 indicates that if the
third party applies before the Prothonotary and Senior Master for search or grant of
certified copies of the papers and proceedings in any suit or matter on payment of the
prescribed fee and charges and if sufficient cause is shown, the Prothonotary and
Senior Master has discretionary power to grant certified copy of the record and
proceedings.
27. The respondent had already filed an affidavit along with such application for
certified copies before the Prothonotary and Senior Master stating reasons as to why
she required such copies. The respondent had already filed criminal proceedings
against the applicant and her family members. The respondent required the papers and
proceedings for the purpose of filing a petition for revocation of the probate obtained
by the applicant and her family members. The learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master has not decided the issue as to whether respondent would have locus to file
such petition or not. In my view merely because the learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master having been satisfied with the sufficient cause shown by the respondent and
has passed an order for issuance of certified copy of the papers and proceedings, it
would not cause any prejudice to the applicant or her family members in any manner
whatsoever. By the impugned order the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master or by
the learned Commissioner for taking accounts has not decided the rights if any which
the respondent proposes to claim in the proceedings proposed to be filed by the
respondent.
28. A perusal of the other provisions of High Court rules indicates that when any
such notice is required to be issued by the Prothonotary and Senior Master to any
party, there is specific provision in that regard. A perusal of rule 268 however does not
indicate issuance of any prior notice to a party to the proceeding before considering
an application of a third party for issuance of certified copy of the papers and
proceedings. In my view the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master having
exercised his discretion on having been satisfied that sufficient cause was shown for
issuance of certified copies, this Court shall not interfere with such discretion
exercised by the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master.
29. It is held by the Supreme Court in case of Basanti Devi Vs Ravi Prakash
Ramprasad Jaiswal(2008)1 SCC 267 that an application for grant of probate is a
proceeding in rem and a probate when granted not only binds all the parties before the
Court but also binds all other persons in all proceedings arising out of the will or
claims under or connected therewith. In my view the interest of the applicant thus
cannot be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever merely because the learned
Prothonotary and Senior Master ordered issuance of certified copy of the papers and
proceedings. It is made clear that merely because the application of the respondent for
certified copies of the papers and proceedings is allowed by the learned Prothonotary
and Senior Master, it does not create any right or establish any right in favour of the
respondent which she proposes to claim in the proceedings proposed to be filed. If
any proceedings are filed by the respondent for revocation of the probate or any of the
proceedings the same shall be decided on its own merits. In my view since neither
any rights are created in favour of the respondent nor any rights of the applicant are
affected by issuance of certified copy of the proceeding, the learned Prothonotary and
Senior Master was not bound to issue any notice or hear the parties before passing
such order.
33. I am not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned senior Counsel for the
applicant that unless the respondent was able to show that she had a caveatable
interest in the estate of the deceased, the Prothonotary and Senior Master could not
have allowed certified copies of the papers and proceedings in the probate matter. In
my view the condition applicable for revocation of probate prescribed under section
263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 cannot be extended to an application for
certified copy of the probate proceedings made under rule 268 of the High Court
rules. I am thus not dealing with the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by
both parties on the issue of caveatable interest. Since the respondent has not
challenged the order on the ground of maintainability of review petition, I need not
deal with the said issue in this order.
34. In so far as submission of the learned senior counsel that the respondent had
already made a separate application for copy of the probate before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate which proceedings are stayed by this court, learned
Prothonotary could not have passed an order for issuance of certified copy of the
probate proceedings is concerned, a perusal of the record indicates that the
application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate made by the respondent for
copy of the probate was made after order was passed by the Prothonotary and Senior
Master. Be that as it may, the said application was not decided by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate in view of the stay of the proceedings granted by this court.
In any event, both the proceedings are different.
35. It is made clear that the respondent shall use the certified copies of the papers
and proceedings in the probate petition only for her personal use in accordance with
the rule 271 and will not part with copies of such proceedings in favour of any third
party. In my view the chamber summons is devoid of any merits and deserves to be
rejected. I therefore pass the following order:-
36. Chamber summon is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. The learned
learned Prothonotary and Senior Master to act on authenticated copy of this order.
37. Dr. Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the applicant seeks continuation of the
ad interim order passed by this court which is opposed by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent. Application for continuation of stay is refused.
(R.D. DHANUKA, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment