HIMANSHU KHANNA & ANR. vs RAJEEV KHANNA & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 11.06.2025 + C.R.P. 95/2024 & CM APPL. 14706/2024 HIMANSHU KHANNA & ANR. .....Petitioners versus RAJEEV KHANNA & ANR. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr. Jatan Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Naman Gupta, Mr. Tushar Lamba & Ms. Mansi Goyal, Advs. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajeev Khanna, Adv. in person for R1 & R2. CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT 1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed by the learned ADJ, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMALDEEP KAUR C.R.P. 95/2024 Page 1 of 15 Signing Date:17.06.2025 17:52:37 probate of the last will and testament dated 07.12.2010 of late Smt. Swadesh Khanna. The respondents are the sons of Late Mrs. Swadesh Khanna. The husband of late Smt. Swadesh Khanna and her son– Sanjeev Khanna were impleaded as respondents in the petition. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Mr. Sanjeev Khanna. The respondents were named in the subject will as executors and by way of the will, Late Mrs. Swadesh Khanna had bequeathed her movable and immovable properties, including, a property in Malviya Nagar, in favour of the respondents. 3. The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for dismissal of the suit contending that the probate case was not maintainable as the Court had no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the same. It w