Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1120 (RAJ)

Shyam Sunder Jhanwar v. Santosh Binyala

2011-05-24

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT : Narendra Kumar Jain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has preferred this transfer application under Section 24 C.P.C. for transferring Application No. 78/2008 filed by the petitioner under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act pending in the Court of District Judge, Jhalawar to the Court having jurisdiction at Jaipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act was filed by the petitioner for grant of succession certificate in respect of property left by his wife, Smt. Shashi Binyala, daughter of Respondent No. 2 Banwarilal Binyala, who died while in service. Subsequently, another suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction was also filed by the petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which has now been transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, wherein the dispute is in respect of Plot No. A-156, Hathoj Extension Scheme, Kalwad Road, Jaipur, which was in the name of wife of the petitioner. He submitted that service of notice has already been effected on both the respondents in respect of civil suit pending at Jaipur and they are contesting the said suit. Both the respondents are residing at Jaipur, therefore, it will not only be convenient for the petitioner, but it will also be convenient for the respondents that application for grant of succession certificate pending at Jhalawar may be transferred to Jaipur. 4. A notice to show cause was given to the respondents, but no one is present on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice. The matter was listed on 23.05.2011, but no one was present on behalf of the respondents, therefore, the case was kept for today and today also, no one is present on behalf of the respondents to oppose the transfer application. 5. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the documents annexed with the application. 6. It appears that dispute between the parties is going in respect of assets left by Smt. Shashi Binyala, who was wife of the petitioner Shyam Sunder and daughter of Respondents No. 1 and 2, Smt. Santosh Binyala and Banwarilal Binyala respectively. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the documents annexed with the application. 6. It appears that dispute between the parties is going in respect of assets left by Smt. Shashi Binyala, who was wife of the petitioner Shyam Sunder and daughter of Respondents No. 1 and 2, Smt. Santosh Binyala and Banwarilal Binyala respectively. Since another suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction is already pending at Jaipur and the same is being attended by the respondents, therefore, it will be convenient for the parties that the case pending at Jhalawar is also transferred to Jaipur. 7. Consequently, transfer application is allowed. Application No. 78/2008 pending in the Court of District Judge, Jhalawar is transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 8. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to both the concerned Courts for compliance.