Smt. Pushpa Pareek Wife Of Late ... vs Smt. Vinita Pareek (Agarwal) Wife ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6844 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 455/2022

Smt. Pushpa Pareek Wife Of Late Shri Shyam Kumar Pareek,
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
Smt. Vinita Pareek (Agarwal) Wife Of Shri Ravindra Kumar
Agarwal,
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anoop Agarwal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

20/10/2022

1. Appellants-defendants have filed this first appeal, assailing

judgment and decree dated 11.4.2022 passed by Additional

District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan I, Jaipur in civil suit

No.33/2019 whereby civil suit for partition and permanent

injunction, filed by respondent-plaintiff, has been decreed.

2. Heard.

3. Appeal is admitted.

4. Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent,

hence, service is complete.

5. Appellants have moved application under Order 41 Rule 27

CPC to place Will dated 26.1.2000 alleged to be executed by

Shyam Kumar Pareek in favour of his wife i.e. appellant No.1.

6. Counsel for respondent objects to this Will that same was

neither referred by appellants in their written statement nor was

disclosed in their evidence yet sought to be produced at the stage

of final arguments which has been declined by the trial Court.

(2 of 2) [CFA-455/2022]

Counsel for respondent submits that Will is not genuine and may

not be taken into consideration.

7. As far as application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is

concerned, same shall be considered at the time of hearing of first

appeal finally.

8. Accordingly, the application stand disposed of.

9. Heard on the stay application.

10. It is not in dispute between parties that both suit houses

belong to Shyam Kumar Pareek and the suit properties have been

provided in 1/5-1/5 share among his surviving natural heirs it

means wife, three sons and one daughter. Appellants-defendants

have challenged the impugned judgment and preliminary decree

for partition on the basis of Will, which is yet to be taken into

consideration. Therefore, at this stage no prima facie case is made

out for staying further proceedings/ preparation of final decree as

such the trial Court may proceed to prepare the final decree,

however, same shall remain outcome of this first appeal.

11. In the meanwhile, both parties shall maintain status quo as

to alienation and possession in respect of their respective portion

in the suit property as it exits today.

12. Since this Court has permitted the trial Court to proceed with

the preparation of final decree, record need not be summoned.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

NITIN /15

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)