SIMRIN SINGH vs STATE & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Delivered on: 28.01.2026 + TEST.CAS. 3/2001 SIMRIN SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rishabh Bansal and Mr. Vinayak Goyal, Advs. versus STATE & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Alok Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Manisha A. Narain, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. Varun Maheshwari, Mr. Manan Soni and Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGMENT VIKAS MAHAJAN, J (ORAL) I.A. 25833/2025 (under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC by R-2) 1. The present application has been filed by respondent no.2 to place on record certain original medical documents pertaining to late Ms. Kusum Kaur, which have been enumerated in para 8 of the application. 2. Mr.Alok Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2/applicant submits that the present Test Case has been filed seeking probate in respect of the Will dated 05.06.1996. 3. He submits that the petition was filed by late Smt. Kusum Kaur, who expired on 04.02.2008. After the demise of late Smt. Kusum Kaur, her son Harikrat Singh moved an application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC seeking his substitution in the present petition. However, during pendency of the said Signature Not Verified TEST.CAS. 3/2001 Page 1 of 9 Digitally Signed By:NARENDRA SINGH ASWAL Signing Date:07.02.2026 11:53:14 application Harkirat Singh also passed away on 19.10.2010. Thereafter, the daughter of Harkirat Singh namely, Simrin Singh (petitioner) filed separate application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC i.e. I.A. 1237/2011 seeking her substitution, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2016. 4. Mr. Kumar has further invited attention of the Court to the order dated 27.05.2016 to contend that vide said order, the Court also has