The Appellant/Petitioner had not given sufficient explanation for condonation of delay and had slept over her rights for 9/10 years. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh in the matter of Smti. Clarinda Momin Vs. Smti. Brishmony G. Momin [FA. No. 1 of 2019].
The facts of the case were associated with the appellant who was aggrieved by the order dated 10.05.2007. The Counsel, Mr. A. H. Hazarika representing the appellant stated that the appellant herein was the executor of her late elder brother’s Will and Testament. The late brother left all his landed property including four residential standing houses and other belongings, moveable and immoveable to the Appellant but excluding his first wife, the respondent. Moreover, the appellant before the Garo Hills District Council Court at Tura filed an application wherein the Court in favour of the Appellant had granted probate of the Will. The Counsel also stated that the application was dismissed by the learned Judge, District Council Court, GHADC on the ground that there was a delay of 9/10 years in filing the application without any sufficient explanation for condonation of delay by the respondent.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent did not make any counter submissions and had consented to the prayer that this matter may be remanded to the Court of the Judge, District Council Court, GHADC for trial after allowing the Respondent herein to be made a party thereto.
The Hon’ble High Court considering all the facts stated that “In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside and quashed. Probate Case No. 1 of 2019 in the Court of the Judge, District Council Court, GHADC is restored to file. The Appellant/ Petitioner, as well as the Respondent herein, are accordingly directed to appear before the said Court on 20.11.2021 to proceed in the case.”
The said matter was disposed of.
Click here to read the Judgment
Judgment reviewed by- Bipasha Kundu
