Pavitar Singh vs Maharchand
2021 Latest Caselaw 18737 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 210/2020

1. Pavitar Singh S/o Amreek Singh, Aged About 39 Years,

B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Ward No. 1, Raisinghnagar, District

Sriganganagar (Car Driver)

2. Tejendar Kaur W/o Harcharan Singh, Aged About 43

Years, D/o Late Kuldeep Kaur, W/o Guljinder Singh, B/c

Jat Sikh, R/o 3/265, Muktaprasad Colony, Bikaner

3. Gurdeep Kaur W/o Pavitar Singh, Aged About 37 Years,

D/o Late Kuldeep Kaur, W/o Guljinder Singh, B/c Jat Sikh,

R/o Ward No. 1, Raisinghnagar (Vehicle Owner)

----Appellants Versus Maharchand S/o Bhagwanaram, Aged About 35 Years, B/c

Kumhar, R/o Khayaliwala, 16Ml, Tehsil And District

Sriganganagar.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 211/2020

1. Pavitar Singh S/o Amreek Singh, Aged About 39 Years,

B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Ward No. 1, Raisinghnagar, District

Sriganganagar (Car Driver)

2. Tejendar Kaur W/o Harcharan Singh, Aged About 43

Years, D/o Late Kuldeep Kaur, W/o Guljinder Singh, B/c

Jat Sikh, R/o 3/265, Muktaprasad Colony, Bikaner.

3. Gurdeep Kaur W/o Pavitra Singh, Aged About 37 Years,

D/o Late Kuldeep Kaur, W/o Guljinder Singh, B/c Jat Sikh,

R/o Ward No. 1, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar

(Vehicle Owner)

----Appellants Versus Mahaveer S/o Jawahar Lal, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Kumar, R/o

(2 of 2) [CMA-210/2020]

6 Lnp, Tehsil And District Sriganganagar

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. RDSS Kharlia Mr. Deepender Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himmat Jagga

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

09/12/2021

After attempting to argue the matter on merit for quite some

time, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does

not want to press the stay application, however, seeks liberty for

appellant Nos.2 and 3 to move appropriate application before the

executing court disclosing the accounts of the property, which they

have received from their mother after her death.

Accordingly, the stay application preferred by the appellant

is dismissed as not pressed with the liberty sought for.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

300-Arun/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)