[2026:RJ-JP:20365] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7308/2023 Smt. Upma Parashar Wife Of Shri Arun Parashar, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 154, Guru Jambheshwar Nagar-A, Gandhi Path, Queens Road, Jaipur 302021 Resident Of G-H-9/ 480, Sunder Enclave, Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi- 110063. Establishment - 22, Dda Market, Block A-3, Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi 110063. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Sadhna Jaiman Wife Of Late Shri Rahul Jaiman, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of 93/75, Behind Naresh Goyal Orthopedic Hospital, Vijay Path, Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur. 2. Shubham Jaiman Son Of Late Shri Rahul Jaiman, Resident Of 93/75, Behind Naresh Goyal Orthopedic Hospital, Vijay Path, Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur. 3. Sakshi Jaiman Daughter Of Late Shri Rahul Jaiman, Resident Of 93/75, Behind Naresh Goyal Orthopedic Hospital, Vijay Path, Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur. 4. Smt. Meeta Sharma Wife Of Shri Shailendra Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of House No. 110, Padmawati Colony-B, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur. 5. Every General, And Special Person. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O P Mishra For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 14/05/2026 1. The petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan No.II whereby, the probate application [2026:RJ-JP:20365] (2 of 3) [CW-7308/2023] moved under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been dismissed, for want of evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Heard and perused the material available on record. This Court has specifically analyzed the impugned order, the contents of which are reproduced as under: “i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izkFkhZ;k dks viuh lk{; izLrqr djus gsrq 13 volj fn, tk pqds gSaA izkFkhZ;k dks xr isf’k;ksa ij dkWLV ij Hkh vafre volj fn, x, gSaA izkFkhZ;k }kjk uk rks dkWLV dh jkf’k vnk dh xbZ vkSj uk gh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr dh xbZA xr is’kh ij bl U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkhZ;k dks ;g dgrs gq, vafre volj fn;k x;k Fkk fd vxj ml }kjk vkxkeh Iks’kh ij lk{; izLrqr ugha dh rks mldh lk{; lekIr dj nh tk,xhA vkt Hkh izkFkhZ;k U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gS] mlds vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk izkFkhZ;k dh xEHkhj chekjh ds laca/k esa dksbZ fpfdRldh; izek.k i= Hkh layXu ugha fd;k x;k gSA mDr leLr rF;ksa ls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ;k tku&cw>dj lk{; nsus gsrq U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gks jgh gSA izkscsV izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk vly olh;r Hkh izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA mijksDr lHkh rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ;k dks mldh lk{; izLrqr djus gsrq bl U;k;ky; }kjk Ik;kZIr volj fn, tkus ds Ik’pkr Hkh ml }kjk lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS] blfy, izkFkhZ;k dks lk{; gsrq vkSj volj fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS] blfy, izkFkhZ;k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS] izkFkhZ;k dh lk{; lekIr dh tkrh gSA izkFkhZ;k }kjk vius izdj.k ds leFkZu esa dksbZ Hkh lk{; izLrqr ugha fd, tkus ds dkj.k ml }kjk izLrqr izkscsV izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk 276 Hkkjrh; mRrjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925 vkns’k 17 fu;e 03 lh-ih-lh- ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh esa vkSj dksbZ dk;Zokgh 'ks"k ugha gS] vr% i=koyh QSly’kqekj gksdj ckn rdehy nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA” 3. While passing the said impugned order, the concerned Court has duly noted that as many as thirteen opportunities for placing evidence on record were granted; that no appropriate evidence was submitted despite grant of opportunities, and adjournment was sought stating medical grounds. Further, the merits of Section 276 of the Act of 1925, qua its requisites and essential elements were also dealt, along with the fact of not filing of the original Will along with the probate application. [2026:RJ-JP:20365] (3 of 3) [CW-7308/2023] 4. Upon perusal of the material available on record, taking note of the fact that the present petition was filed in the year 2023, and is up on board for hearing in the year 2026, this Court is of a view that the learned Trial Court has properly and lawfully acted and also noted its rationale in the order impugned, which per se does not appear to be perverse. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the observations noted hereinabove. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- which is to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, within an upper limit period of seven working days. 6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK /12