[2025:RJ-JP:2691] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1899/2020 1. Radhey Shayam Pareek @ Ravindra Pareek, Son Of Shri Shiv Dayal Pareek, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of House No. 2149, Gulji Dhabai Ki Gali, Gangouri Bazar, Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur. 2. Madhur Pareek Son Of Shri Radhey Shyam Pareek @ Ravindra Kumar Pareek, Resident Of House No. 2149, Gulji Dhabai Ki Gali, Gangouri Bazar, Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur. 3. Gunjan Pareek Son Of Shri Radhey Shyam Pareek, Resident Of House No. 2149, Gulji Dhabai Ki Gali, Gangouri Bazar, Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus Public and General ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Jatav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 20/01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed petitioners against the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in civil probate petition No. 215/2000 titled as Radhey Shyam Pareek and Ors., whereby the application filed by the petitioner No. 2 under Order 13 Rule 9 CPC has been dismissed and the prayer made by the petitioners for returning the original Will dated 04.03.1994 has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Smt. Bhonri Devi had executed a will on 04.03.1994 whereby she had assigned her properties in favour of he petitioners after her death. After the death of Smt. Bhonri Devi the petitioners applied for probate and the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur vide order dated [2025:RJ-JP:2691] (2 of 2) [CW-1899/2020] 01.08.2001 granted probate in favour of the petitioners. However in the probate, learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur mentioned that the Will of Smt. Bhonri Devi shall be as an integral part of the probate. In this view of the matter, the petitioners could neither obtain loan on the said property nor could sell or repair the suit property. The petitioners filed an application under Order 13 Rule 9 CPC before the trial court for returning the original Will to them, so that the suit property could be used. Howver, the learned District Judge vide order dated 17.12.2019 dismissed the said application and denied to return the original Will. He has prayed that the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 be set aside and the original Will be return to the petitioners after retaining the certified copy of the same on record. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the same. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the original Will is returned to the petitioners after retaining the certified copy of the same on record. Accordingly, the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur is set aside and the court below is directed to return the original Will to the petitioners after obtaining a certified copy of the same and placing the same on record. The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/20