S S LAL Vs. VISHNU MITTER GOVIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the appellant has impugned the order passed by the learned Single Judge on March 23, 2004 disallowing the application of the appellant by which the appellant took the plea that the probate petition was barred by limitation.

(2.) It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, AIR 1977 SC 282, where the Supreme Court held as under :

(3.) On the same analogy, Article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply to proceedings for grant of probate. Learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of a decision of the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hari Narain (deceased) through LRs. v. Subhash Chander & Ors., AIR 1985 P & H 211 argued that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to. any petition or application filed in a Court where no other period of limitation has been prescribed. On the aforesaid basis it was contended before us that in Pamela Manmohan Singh v. State & Ors., 83 (2000) DLT 469 one learned Single Judge of this Court extended the ratio of the decision in Hari Narain's case applying the same principle in a case of grant of probate mutatis mutandis to cases pertaining to grant of probate. However, in the judgment impugned before us learned Single Judge, apart from holding that right to apply for probate or letter of administration is a recurring one, held that it would be inappropriate to fall back upon Article 137 of the Limitation Act. He has also noticed in the impugned judgment Ramanand Thakur v. Parmanand Thakur, AIR 1982 Patna 87 and Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani v. Sajni Prem Lalwani, AIR 1983 Bombay 268 in support of the impugned order.