[2025:RJ-JP:41193] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 248/2024 1. Smt. Payal D/o Late Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, W/o Dheeraj Vadiya, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bajar No. 2, Near Shubham Kachori Ramganjmandi, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota (Raj.). 2. Shivangi, D/o Late Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 24 Years. 3. Shubham S/o Late Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Bajar No. 2, Ramganjmandi, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota (Raj.). 4. Govind S/o Late Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Bajar No. 2, Ramganjmandi, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota (Raj.). ----Appellants/Defendants No.1 to 4 Versus 1. Smt. Shyamabai W/o Prakashchand, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Sudama Nagar, Indore (M.P.). 2. Smt. Sushila W/o Umashankar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Bhawanimandi, Tehsil Pachpahad, District Jhalawar (Raj.). 3. Smt. Meena,w/o Rajendra, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Jhalawar, District Jhalawar (Raj.). -------Respondents/Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 4. Jagdishchand Gupta, S/o Balgovind Gupta, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Raonsali Road Ramganjmandi, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota (Raj.). 5. Kalpesh Gupta, S/o Jagdishchand Gupta, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ronsali Road Ramganjmandi, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota (Raj.). 6. Smt. Rinku, D/o Sh. Narayan Lal, W/o Dharmendra Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Neemuch (M.P.) (Non-Service decided on 13-03-2014). ----Proforma Respondents/ Defendants No. 5 to 7 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saurabh Vaishnav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mr. Gaurav Sharma Saraswat Mr. Sahil Parashar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 09/10/2025 1. Appellants were defendants No.1 to 4 in the Civil Suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs-respondents No.1 to 3 and have assailed the preliminary decree for partition dated 18.10.2023 [2025:RJ-JP:41193] (2 of 2) [CFA-248/2024] passed in Civil Suit No. 30/2009 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ramganjmandi, District Kota by way of filing instant Civil First Appeal. 2. A Misc. Application (1/2025) has been filed by and on behalf of appellants, stating inter alia, that they have mutually settled the issue of partition and do not wish to assail the preliminary decree for partition and seeks permission to withdraw the appeal. 3. Application has not been opposed by the respondents- plaintiffs, though, counsel for respondents No.4 and 5, who claims to be bonafide purchaser of the suit property, does not agree with the alleged factum of mutual settlement. 4. Without going into merits, since appellants do not wish to continue this first appeal, hence, the application (1/2025) is allowed and the first appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /21