Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Urn: Cw / 13686U / 2023Smt. Upma Parashar … vs Smt. Sadhna Jaiman Wife Of Late Shri … on 14 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:20365]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7308/2023
Smt. Upma Parashar Wife Of Shri Arun Parashar, Aged About 59
Years, Resident Of 154, Guru Jambheshwar Nagar-A, Gandhi
Path, Queens Road, Jaipur 302021 Resident Of G-H-9/ 480,
Sunder Enclave, Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi- 110063.
Establishment - 22, Dda Market, Block A-3, Pashchim Vihar, New
Delhi 110063.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Sadhna Jaiman Wife Of Late Shri Rahul Jaiman,
Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of 93/75, Behind Naresh
Goyal Orthopedic Hospital, Vijay Path, Agrawal Farm,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
2. Shubham Jaiman Son Of Late Shri Rahul Jaiman, Resident
Of 93/75, Behind Naresh Goyal Orthopedic Hospital, Vijay
Path, Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3. Sakshi Jaiman Daughter Of Late Shri Rahul Jaiman,
Resident Of 93/75, Behind Naresh Goyal Orthopedic
Hospital, Vijay Path, Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
4. Smt. Meeta Sharma Wife Of Shri Shailendra Sharma,
Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of House No. 110,
Padmawati Colony-B, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur.
5. Every General, And Special Person.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O P Mishra
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
14/05/2026
1. The petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, assailing the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the District
Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan No.II whereby, the probate application
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:56:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 11:35:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:20365] (2 of 3) [CW-7308/2023]
moved under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been
dismissed, for want of evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of Code
of Civil Procedure.
2. Heard and perused the material available on record. This
Court has specifically analyzed the impugned order, the contents
of which are reproduced as under:
“i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izkFkhZ;k dks viuh lk{; izLrqr djus gsrq 13
volj fn, tk pqds gSaA izkFkhZ;k dks xr isf’k;ksa ij dkWLV ij Hkh vafre
volj fn, x, gSaA izkFkhZ;k }kjk uk rks dkWLV dh jkf’k vnk dh xbZ
vkSj uk gh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr dh xbZA xr is’kh ij bl U;k;ky; }kjk
izkFkhZ;k dks ;g dgrs gq, vafre volj fn;k x;k Fkk fd vxj
ml }kjk vkxkeh Iks’kh ij lk{; izLrqr ugha dh rks mldh lk{;
lekIr dj nh tk,xhA vkt Hkh izkFkhZ;k U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr
ugha gS] mlds vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk izkFkhZ;k dh
xEHkhj chekjh ds laca/k esa dksbZ fpfdRldh; izek.k i= Hkh layXu ugha
fd;k x;k gSA mDr leLr rF;ksa ls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ;k
tku&cw>dj lk{; nsus gsrq U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gks jgh
gSA izkscsV izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk vly olh;r Hkh izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA
mijksDr lHkh rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ;k dks
mldh lk{; izLrqr djus gsrq bl U;k;ky; }kjk Ik;kZIr volj fn,
tkus ds Ik’pkr Hkh ml }kjk lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS] blfy,
izkFkhZ;k dks lk{; gsrq vkSj volj fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha
gksrk gS] blfy, izkFkhZ;k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS]
izkFkhZ;k dh lk{; lekIr dh tkrh gSA izkFkhZ;k }kjk vius izdj.k ds
leFkZu esa dksbZ Hkh lk{; izLrqr ugha fd, tkus ds dkj.k ml }kjk
izLrqr izkscsV izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk 276 Hkkjrh; mRrjkf/kdkj
vf/kfu;e] 1925 vkns’k 17 fu;e 03 lh-ih-lh- ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i
[kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh esa vkSj dksbZ dk;Zokgh ‘ks”k ugha gS] vr%
i=koyh QSly’kqekj gksdj ckn rdehy nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA ”
3. While passing the said impugned order, the concerned Court
has duly noted that as many as thirteen opportunities for placing
evidence on record were granted; that no appropriate evidence
was submitted despite grant of opportunities, and adjournment
was sought stating medical grounds. Further, the merits of Section
276 of the Act of 1925, qua its requisites and essential elements
were also dealt, along with the fact of not filing of the original Will
along with the probate application.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:56:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 11:35:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:20365] (3 of 3) [CW-7308/2023]
4. Upon perusal of the material available on record, taking note
of the fact that the present petition was filed in the year 2023,
and is up on board for hearing in the year 2026, this Court is of a
view that the learned Trial Court has properly and lawfully acted
and also noted its rationale in the order impugned, which per se
does not appear to be perverse. Thus, this Court is not inclined to
interfere in the observations noted hereinabove.
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with a
cost of Rs.10,000/- which is to be deposited with the Rajasthan
State Legal Services Authority, within an upper limit period of
seven working days.
6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
DEEPAK /12
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:56:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 11:35:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
