IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1927/2008 Mrs. Habibunisha Vs. A.D.J.(F.T.) No.5, Jaipur City & Ors. 13.10.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Arun Bhadari, for the petitioner. Shri P.S. Sirohi, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The matter has come on the application bearing No.31792 dated 5.9.2008 filed by the respondent under article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the exparte stay order dated 3.3.2008. I have perused the impugned order Annexure-3 and I find that earlier in the suit also the issued with regard to the property in dispute not being part as a partible estate was raising and it was decided vide order dated 4.1.2003 that the property in dispute was a part of partible estate and that the allotment of the same in favour of Mohd. Yunus, who is one of the son of Ahmed Khan was made as he was the head of the family. The aforesaid allotment was on the basis of survey which was carried out on 18.9.1971 and there in the said proceedings the other brothers had given the evidence that the property in dispute may be alloted in favour of Mohd. Yunus who is the head of the family. This fact has been recorded in the impugned order from 26 to 27 of typed copy of the order. The earlier order dated 4.1.2003 has become final though it was challenged in revision petition before this court. The said revision petition has not been pursued and was subsequently dismissed. When the brothers failed this application was filed by the applicant who is the wife of one of the defendants who raised the objections earlier. In the facts and circumstances therefore I do not find any jurisdictional error having been committed by the learned trial court. In the facts and circumstances therefore this writ petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. The interim order dated 3.3.2008 is also vacated. The application bearing No.2097 dated 26.2.2008 also stands disposed of. The dismissal of this writ petition upholding the order rejecting the application under order 1 rule 10 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner shall not in any manner come in the way of the petitioner seeking her remedy in accordance with law. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS