Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) v. Bal Mukund Rajguru S/o Late

Vishal Vyas S/o Late Shri Bhanu Kumar Sharma (Vyas), Aged About 32 Years, R/o 3793, Vyas Building, Charua Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus

1. Bal Mukund Rajguru S/o Late Shri Pushkar Narain Sharma, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Holi Ka Chowk, Pushkar, Ajmer (Rajasthan)

2. Smt. Radha Rani Vyas W/o Shri Ghanshyamvyas, Aged About 42 Years, C/o Late Shri Pushkar Narain Sharma, R/o House No. 16/6, Parsi Mohalla, Chhawni, Indore (M.p.) And Through Bal Mukund Rajguru, Holi Ka Chowk, Pushkar, Ajmer (Rajasthan)

3. Kanhiyalal Rajguru S/o Late Shri Pushkar Narain Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Holi Ka Chowk, Pushkar, Ajmer (Rajasthan)

4. Surendra Rajguru S/o Late Shri Pushkar Narain Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Holi Ka Chowk, Pushkar, Ajmer (Rajasthan)

5. Smt. Shankuntla Devi W/o Shri Bharat Kumar Vyas D/o Late Shri Shiv Charan Ji, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Sheeshu Rangoli District Sikar (Rajasthan) Since Deceased During Revision Petition Represented By 5/1. Mahaveer Kumar Parashar, Aged About 39 Years, S/o Late Smt. Shankuntla Devi W/o Late Shri Bharat Kumar Vyas C/o Kalyanji Ka Mandir, Village Sheeshu Ranoli District Sikar (Rajasthan) [2025:RJ-JP:10720] (2 of 5) [CSA-908/2011] 5/2. Ashok Kumar Parashar, Aged About 39 Years, S/o Late Smt. Shankuntla Devi W/o Late Shri Bharat Kumar Vyas C/o Kalyanji Ka Mandir, Village Sheeshu Ranoli District Sikar (Rajasthan) 5/3. Sanjay Kumar Parashar, Aged About 35 Years, S/o Late Smt. Shankuntla Devi W/o Late Shri Bharat Kumar Vyas C/o House Of Shri Satyanarain Sharma (Painter), Near Temple Of Prem Bihariji, House No. 538, Jai Lal Munshi Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) At Present R/o Udai Narain Triphati, Uday Bhawan, H. No. 1632, Jai Lal Munshi Ka Rasta, Mission School Ki Gali, Chandpole, Jaipur 5/4. Smt. Sangeeta Parashar W/o Shri Vijay Kumar Parashar, Aged About 31 Years, D/o Late Smt. Shankuntla Devi And Late Shri Bharat Kumar Vyas, Near Bengali Temple, Sharma Mohalla, Bikaner (Rajasthan)

6. Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Late Shri Brij Mohan D/o Late Shri Shiv Charan Ji, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Diggi Lawa, District Tonk (Rajasthan)

7. Smt. Urmila Devi W/o Shri Girdhar Sharma D/o Late Shri Shiv Charan Ji, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Near Old Kotwali, Gherkot, Maniyan, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)

8. Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Ji Vyas, Aged About 82 Years, R/o Vyas Building, House No. 793, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Since Deceased During Appeal Represented By 8/1. Smt. Veena Vyas W/o Shri Harish Vyas D/o Of Shri Shyamlal Ji Vyas, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Flat No. 205, Second Floor, Dhanlaxmi Appartment, Upper Govind Nagar, Malad (East), Mumbai (Maharashtra)

9. Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Late Shri Daya Shankar Vyas, Aged About 53 Years, R/o House No. 793, Vyas Building, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

10. Gourav Vyas S/o Late Daya Shankar Vyas, Aged About 25 Years, R/o House No. 793, Vyas Building, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

11. Sourabh Vyas S/o Late Daya Shankar Vyas, Aged About 23 Years, R/o House No. 793, Vyas Building, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur (Rajasthan) [2025:RJ-JP:10720] (3 of 5) [CSA-908/2011]

12. Kumari Chitra D/o Late Daya Shankar Vyas, Aged About 21 Years, R/o House No. 793, Vyas Building, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

13. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Late Bej Nath, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Aradhana Pustak Mandir, Vyas Building, Choura Rasta, Jaipur Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.C. Gupta with Mr. Anirudh Sharma & Ms. Purvi Mathur For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 10/03/2025

1. Aggrieved from dismissal of Civil Regular Appeal No.03/2003 by learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur on

02.12.2006 affirming the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2002 in Civil Suit No.314/1987 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jaipur City, Jaipur, instant second appeal is preferred by appellants-defendants No.3 to 6.

2. Learned counsel for appellants-defendants submits that after passing of judgment and decree dated 18.11.2002, a suit for partition was filed and same was decreed wherein, a specific division was directed by learned Trial Court and first appeal from said judgment and decree is pending. He submits that learned Trial Court after considering the material on record has passed a decree for apportionment of rent. He also submits that present appellant-defendant Nos.3 to 6 were wrongly arrayed as defendant Nos.3 to 6 as they were not concerned with the subject matter filed by respondent-plaintiff. He also referred the decree and submitted that this decree was passed against defendant No.1 and defendant No.7. No specific order or direction was passed [2025:RJ-JP:10720] (4 of 5) [CSA-908/2011] against present appellants. He submitted that the grounds give rise to certain substantial question of law as proposed in Para “E” of memo of appeal. At last, he submits that this appeal may be disposed of at this stage.

3. Heard learned counsel for appellant. Perused the material placed on record.

4. Facts giving rise to instant second appeal are that plaintiffs- Smt. Anusuia Devi, Smt. Shakuntla Devi, Smt. Krishna Devi and Smt. Urmila Devi have filed a civil suit for apportionment and recovery of rent. Learned Trial Court has decreed the suit and directed the defendant No.1-Kamla Devi and Defendant No.7- to make half of the payment to the plaintiffs. Though, the suit was decreed technically against present appellants, but no specific direction or decree was passed against present appellants- defendants No. 3 to 6.

5. We have gone through the material placed on record and also the evidence as referred in the judgments of Courts below.

6. A suit for partition was subsequently filed and same was decreed. A first appeal under Section 96 of CPC is pending before learned First Appellate Court, wherein in suit for partition the rights of the parties will be determined conclusively, who claimed certain share in the rent as paid by the tenant. Since, partition suit has been decreed and there is no specific direction against present appellant, therefore, the appeal does not give any rise to substantial question of law. There is no ground to entertain instant second appeal for consideration.

7. The, instant civil second appeal sans merits and same is hereby disposed of affirming the judgments of Courts below. [2025:RJ-JP:10720] (5 of 5) [CSA-908/2011]

8. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. GAURAV /02 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J