JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the following prayers have been made: "[B] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court No. 15, Ahmedabad passed in application below Exh. 33 and 34 preferred by the present petitioner in the interest of justice. [C] Pending admission hearing and till final disposal of the present petition be pleased to stay the further execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court No. 15, Ahmedabad passed in application below Exh. 33 and 34 preferred by the present petitioner in the interest of justice." 2. The brief facts arise from the record are as under : 2.1. That the present respondent No. 1 namely Heenaben Atulbhai Jasani filed Special Civil Suit No. 1847 of 2008 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and prayed for decree of partition of the suit property belongs to her parents against the present respondent No. 2 - original defendant No. 1 as well as against the present petitioner - original defendant No. 2, who are husband and wife. 2.2. It is undisputed fact that there was dispute between the original defendants i.e., husband and wife. The present respondent No. 2 -original defendant No. 1 filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty against the present petitioner - original defendant No. 2 as well as the present petitioner - original defendant No. 2 also made application under the provisions of Sections 17 and 22 of the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The present respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff has filed a pursis at Exh. 38 declaring that she does not want to proceed further with the suit. The said declaration made at Exh. 38 was opposed by the present petitioner - original defendant No. 2 since she had filed application below Exh. 33 and 34 for transposition her as plaintiff and as the present petitioner -original defendant No. 2 also claimed right in the property, in which the respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff has share in the property. On 25.08.2011, the Trial Court passed order by mentioning that the objections have been recorded. 2.3. 33 and 34 for transposition her as plaintiff and as the present petitioner -original defendant No. 2 also claimed right in the property, in which the respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff has share in the property. On 25.08.2011, the Trial Court passed order by mentioning that the objections have been recorded. 2.3. The applications filed by the present petitioner - original defendant No. 2 at Exh. 33 and 34 for transposition her as plaintiff came to be rejected on 14.09.2011. 2.4. Hence, this petition. 3. Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, would submit that there is dispute between the petitioner - wife and respondent No. 2 - her husband, who are defendants in the Special Civil Suit No. 1847 of 2008. Since the original plaintiff made application at Exh. 38 declaring that she does not want to proceed further with the suit as well as the present petitioner had right in the property of her husband, she had made an application for transposition herself as plaintiff and therefore, trial Court ought to have allowed the application submitted by the petitioner to pursue the suit proceedings as plaintiff. In support of his case, he relied upon decision in the case of Sneh Gupta V. Devi Sarup and Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 194 as well as the decision in the case of Mahitosh Sinha V. Shyamapada Sinha & Ors., AIR 2006 Ori 20 . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Tarak Damani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2, would submit that being a wife of the son of the deceased, against whom the original plaintiff has claimed right, it cannot be said that she is also having some interest in the property. He would further submit that even the suit has not been withdrawn since the original plaintiff has subsequently filed an application at Exh. 42 by which she had withdrawn the pursis at Exh. 38. He would further that the suit is pending for disposal. He would further submit that the petitioner is requested to establish her rights before the trial Court and the same would be given after passing appropriate judgment and decree by the trial Court. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed. 5. 38. He would further that the suit is pending for disposal. He would further submit that the petitioner is requested to establish her rights before the trial Court and the same would be given after passing appropriate judgment and decree by the trial Court. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed. 5. He would further submit that the present petitioner has already filed various proceedings under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act as well as under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and has claimed maintenance etc. from the husband, which are pending before the appropriate Court. 6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is an undisputed fact that the suit was filed by the present respondent No. 1 being Special Civil Suit No. 1847 of 2008. The respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff filed a withdrawal pursis at Exh. 38 on 25.08.2011 for withdrawal of the suit. The respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff filed another application at Exh. 42 for withdrawal of the pursis at Exh. 38. It cannot be said that since the respondent No. 2 - original defendant No. 1 is alive, who is husband of the present petitioner and the dispute with regard to the ancestral properties between the brother and sister, the wife cannot claim over the property in question since she is not co-sharer in the ancestral property. Hence, the decisions in case of Sneh Gupta V. Devi Sarup as well as the decision in case of Mahitosh Sinha V. Shyamapada Sinha (Supra) relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner are not applicable to the present case. Therefore, without going into the details at this stage, I am of the opinion that the order impugned in this petition does not call for any interference. Hence, the present petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. 7. It is hereby made clear that the trial Court shall not proceed further with the suit and shall not pass any order without hearing the present petitioner - original defendant No. 2, who wants to contest the suit being Special Civil Suit No. 1847 of 2008. Petition Dismissed.