Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16854 (RAJ)

RAHUL PAREEK S/O LATE SHRI RAMESH CHAND PAREEK v. SMT SAROJ PAREEK W/O ALTE SHRI RAMESH CHAND PAREEK

CMA/639/2025 · 2026-01-09

Bipin Gupta

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:902] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 639/2025 Rahul Pareek S/o Late Shri Ramesh Chand Pareek, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Unit No. 203, Ff Royal Residency-Ii, Plot No. 179, Scheme No. 15A, Shiv Nagar, P.S. Murlipura, Area Murlipura, Sikar Road, Jaipur. ----Appellant/Applicant Versus 1. Smt Saroj Pareek W/o Late Shri Ramesh Chand Pareek, Aged About 71 Years, R/o A-3, Plot No. C-24-C, Raj Heights, Shalimar Garden Extension-2, Saibabad, Ghaziabad (UP) - 201005, At Present R/o Unit No. 203, Ff Roayal Residency-II, Plot No. 179, Scheme No. 15A, Shiv Nagar, P.s. Murlipura, Area Murlipura, Sikar Road, Jaipur. (W/o Deceased) 2. Smt. Bharti Pareek W/o Shri Pallav Joshi D/o Late Shri Ramesh Chand Pareek, R/o D-53, Cement Factory, Sau Nagar, Sawaimadhopur (D/o Deceased) ----Respondents/Non-Applicants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishan Singh Rawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 09/01/2026 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while exercising powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Trial Court has rejected the petition filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1925”). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that if the learned Trial Court had come to the conclusion that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to decide the petition, there was no occasion [2026:RJ-JP:902] (2 of 2) [CMA-639/2025] to reject the petition. In such circumstances, the only course open to the Court was to return the petition to be presented before the appropriate Court. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents could not refute the contention that the petition ought to have been returned for presentation before the proper Court. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 04.11.2024 is hereby, quashed and set aside. The original petition filed under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 is directed to be returned to the appellant for presentation before the appropriate Court. 5. With the above observations, the present civil miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of. 6. The record be sent forthwith to the learned Trial Court for returning the petition to the appellant accordingly. 7 Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/51