HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2128/2024 1. Smt. Sunita Devi W/o Late Sh. Sataynarayan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Nansya, Rehman Nagar, Post Choru, Tehsil- Uniyara, District-Tonk (Raj.) 2. Avdhesh Yadav, Aged About 3 Years, Minor Through Natural Gardian Mother Smt. Sunita Devi W/o Late Sh. Sataynarayan, R/o Nansya, Rehman Nagar, Post Choru, Tehsil-Uniyara, District-Tonk (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Suja Devi W/o Jagdish Yadav, R/o Nansya, Tehsil- Phagi, District-Jaipur (Raj.) Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Commandent Sahab 50 Th Vahini Bharat Tibbat Seema Police Bal, Sector-26, Panchkula, District, Pachkula, Hariyana Pin Code 134116 3. Aaharan And Vitaran Adhikari, 50 Th Vahini Bharat Tibbat Seema Police Bal, Sector-26, Panchkula, District, Pachkula, Hariyana Pin Code 134116 ----Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Mahesh Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Vivek Yadav, Ms. Harshita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Deepak Sidh, Adv. Ms. Anukriti Sharma, Adv. Ms. Swadha Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Gaur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 06/03/2025 The instant civil writ petition has been filed by the defendants-petitioners (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dudu, District Jaipur (for short ‘the appellate court’), in civil appeal No.06/2022, whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the (2 of 3) [CW-2128/2024] Civil Judge, Phagi, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.36/2019 titled as “Avdesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Commandent and Ors.”, by which the trial court allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents (for short ‘the plaintiffs’), and directed the official respondents not to disburse the amount of death claim and other benefits in favour of defendant No.3-Smt. Sunita Devi in relation to martyr- Sataynarayan. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the defendant No.1 is the widow of deceased-Sataynarayan and defendant No.2 is the son of deceased-Sataynarayan. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the plaintiff, who is mother of the deceased-Sataynarayan, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on behalf of defendant No.2- Avdesh Yadav and herself before the trial court regarding death claim and other benefits of deceased-Sataynarayan. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that mother of the deceased wrongly filed the suit of declaration and permanent injunction along-with temporary injunction application before the trial court. She wrongly made the averments in the suit that legal heirs of deceased-Sataynarayan are Smt. Sunita Devi, Suja Devi and Avdhesh Yadav. The brothers of the deceased- Sataynarayan are still alive and they have filed a suit for partition along-with the temporary injunction in the trial court. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that deceased-Sataynarayan had made defendant No.1-Smt. Sunita Devi as nominee in his service record. In this regard, defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed the reply before the trial court but the trial court (3 of 3) [CW-2128/2024] wrongly withheld the death claim and other benefits of deceased- Sataynarayan in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that aggrieved by the said order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the trial court, the defendants filed an appeal before the appellate court but the appellate court vide order dated 14.02.2023 while dismissing the said appeal filed by the defendants, affirmed the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the trial court. So, the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the trial court and the order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the appellate court be set-aside. Despite service of notice, none is present on behalf of the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned orders. It is an admitted position that defendants are legal heirs of deceased-Sataynarayan. Deceased-Sataynarayan in his service record, had made Smt. Sunita Devi as his nominee for receiving service benefits. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has committed an error in issuing injunction against the defendants and the appellate court has also committed an error in confirming the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the trial court. So, the present petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The civil writ petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the appellate court as well as order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the trial court are set-aside. Pending application(s) if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/122