Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh Mewara vs Gordhan Das & Ors on 17 July, 2017
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
..
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8188 / 2017.
Rajesh Mewara S/o Shri Gordhan Das, Aged About 33 Years, By
Caste Kalal, Resident of Kaviraj Ji Ka Bada, Inside Sojati Gate,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Gordhan Das S/o Late Heera Lal, By Caste Kalal, Resident of
Kaviraj Ji Ka Bada, Inside Sojati Gate, Jodhpur.
2. Prem Chand S/o Late Heera Lal, By Caste Kalal, Resident of
210-D, Sardarpura, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
3. Mahendra Kumar S/o Late Heera Lal, By Caste Kalal Mewara,
Resident of Dhundhara House, Damani Colony, Opp. Bombay
Motors, Masuria, Jodhpur.
4. Rajesh Kumar S/o Vijay Kumar, By Caste Khatri, Resident of
Azad Chowk, Barmer.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Rajpurohit.
_____________________________________________________
(2 of 3)
[CW-8188/2017]
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
17/07/2017
BY THE COURT:
By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 05.07.2017 (Annex.6) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Barmer (hereinafter to be referred as "Trial Court") whereby, the petitioner's application dated 29.07.2016 has been rejected.
The facts germane to the present writ petition are that the petitioner (plaintiff) had filed an application under Section 273 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate. During the pendency of the proceedings, an agreement to sell dated 30.06.2010 executed between Defendant No. 4 Rajesh Kumar and Premchand has been placed before the learned Court below. The petitioner (plaintiff) moved an application dated 29.07.2016 seeking direction for production of the original agreement to sell dated 30.06.2016. In response to the said application, the defendants filed a reply stating that the original of the agreement dated 30.06.2010 is not required and as and when, the original thereof would be required by the Court, he would produce the same.
The learned Court below has rejected the petitioner's aforesaid application dated 29.07.2016, inter alia, observing that (3 of 3) [CW-8188/2017] there is no requirement of producing the original agreement to sell dated 30.06.2016 in the proceedings, which are for grant of probate in favour of the plaintiff.
I have heard Mr. C.S. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the material available on record.
This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 05.07.2017 whereby, the petitioner's application dated 29.07.2016 asking for production of the original agreement to sell dated 30.06.2010 has been rejected. The learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the petitioner's application holding, inter alia, that the original agreement to sell is neither relevant nor required for the purpose to grant a probate, wherein rights arising out of the Will of petitioner's grand-father Heeralal are to be examined.
No interference is called for in this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
/Mohan/S-168