Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28900 (RAJ)

SURYA PRAKASH JHALANI S/O SHRI GOVIND NARAYAN JHALANI v. SHRI GOVIND NARAYAN JHALANI S/O SHRI SUNDAR LA JHALANI

CW/14546/2024 · 2025-02-10

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:5722] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14546/2024 Surya Prakash Jhalani S/o Shri Govind Narayan Jhalani, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Plot No. 120, Printers Nagar First, Sitabadi, Tonk Road, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Shri Govind Narayan Jhalani S/o Shri Sundar La Jhalani, R/o Plot No. 120, Printers Nagar First, Sitabadi, Tonk Road, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhavya Kala for Mr. Rajesh Kala For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 10/02/2025 1. The competent authority and Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order dated 21.03.2024 with consent of the parties on the application filed by respondent under Sections 4/5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, "Act of 2007") and further the order dated 25.04.2024 on the application of respondent was passed, which is innocuous in nature. All three parties were set free to live peacefully, without indulgence in the respective shares of plot in question, however, petitioner, for no good reason, preferred appeal against the orders dated 25.04.2024 & 21.03.2024 before the District Collector, which has been dismissed as not maintainable. 2. Although, prima facie, this Court is of the view that the appeal against the final order, passed by the authority under the Act of [2025:RJ-JP:5722] (2 of 2) [CW-14546/2024] 2007, on behest of aggrieved party is maintainable before the District Collector, yet the appeal filed by petitioner is devoid of any substance, hence, there is no purpose to revive the appeal and to direct the Collector to decide the appeal on merits. 3. Counsel for petitioner, after arguing the writ petition and having instructions from the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. Though, in the opinion of this Court, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost, but this Court, taking a lenient view and considering the fact that the writ petition is at the admission stage, the permission for withdrawal of the writ petition is granted. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/22