Petition seeking succession certificate applied in June this year
THE GOAN NETWORK
PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has directed the Civil Judge Senior Division and Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (CJM) Panaji to expedite the hearing of a petition seeking a succession certificate after repeated delays in the proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Bharat Deshpande’s order comes to a writ petition by a widow whose husband -- serving as an Instructor in 3TTR Military Establishment Army Camp at Bambolim, along with other family members -- died in a car accident.
Justice Deshpande slammed the CJM for being insensitive to decide the application considering that the petitioner is solely dependent on her deceased husband’s income for living.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Pravin Faldessai, submitted to the High Court that she applied for a succession certificate in June 2024 to claim service dues and bank account balances, which remain unclaimed due to the absence of necessary legal documents. He stated that despite submitting all required documents and affidavits, the Court has delayed the matter.
“…The service dues, Bank Account, and other dues of the deceased husband are in Goa, since he was serving at Bambolim. The Petitioner accordingly applied for a succession certificate in June 2024 since the Bank Authorities requested her to produce such documents in order to claim the amount which stands in the name of her deceased husband,” Faldesai submitted.
He further stated that the matter was allotted to 'C' Court and thereafter transferred to 'A' Court by the order of the District Court. However, despite all the necessary documents attached, the matter has been adjourned for clarification/orders and later for filing of an affidavit. The CJM adjourned the matter to December 20, 2024.
The petitioner pleaded she is fully dependent on the income of her deceased husband and is deprived of her legitimate right through the delays. “The petitioner is ready and willing to furnish the concerned affidavit, however, the Court must decide such application as expeditiously as possible,” Faldesai said.
The Bench admitted that the delays had led to a denial of justice and directed the trial court to postpone the hearing to November 5 instead of December 20.
“Considering the plight of the petitioner and the fact that many adjournments were granted only for the purpose of clarification/orders, it clearly amounts to denial of justice to the concerned parties. By doing so the concerned Court is clearly exhibiting in-sensitiveness with regard to the matter in hand and to the request of the Petitioner. The Court must consider the need to decide the matter urgently,” reads the order with further directions to dispose of the application within 15 days of filing the affidavit by the petitioner.
