INTHgHpH U^TOFJUDICATU £ tiy^puff MfeB.ADbaalNo 95%/2QOa ofvfefo" S'"ncl| ,^ II Re»Dondi§nt sron-Appltoint) VijayKuffiarJadw^nl, 8/e Hftrjasral Jaclwanj, Aged |baut 48 yeftrs, R/u 14,Panch$heelNsi0ftr,Retl|:»UI:(6.Q.) Smt. Meena Jalalnghflnl, W/o ©hil Ashok tjaisfnQhanl, AhmNJI Oolony, Raipur(0.d.) Vtrsua i, ^Nandlal JadwaBi, @/o Varlnl Gas /^ Jadwani, Wo 5QQ, Ja@»t Ohamber Ambedkar Chowk. G@ntmt Av«nii8 Road, Nagpur(M^) ^INDIANSUOOI ,L vALOfrO At7^ft< V) V At^r^A ^ ^ .,r ^ HI6HCOyRTOFGHHAmS^RH^TBILASPUR HON'BLE DIVISIONBENCK: II MON'BLE MR. I.M.QUD&USI & ^^ANlNbRAMOMANSHRIVASTAV^.JJ. ^Dpetlants Responctent M.4 Ne 958/2005 | Vijoy KumarJadwanil&anQther Vs Ndndlal Jadwoni ;.Pr€S€nt::.;.-.- ' •, -•:•••>••••'':i: ^:/i \ •: '..:•.••"''.'•./.'':..::. ..'..''. ".:"1;,' "::•• /:'.."• Mr, P.K. Verma, 5r. Advocate with Mr, P*fe P^ Mr. P. Bharat & Mr< G.Q. Waswani, Advoartes for the fespondent ORDERtOrar) (2r'dMay,?Gll) I M. QuddusL J; 1. Meard; 2. Tlie appeltants have flled ifiis miscellaneous appeal aQGinst the ord^r dated 16-6.2005 in MJC No.3/2003 by the leamed 3ni Additiondl District Judge, Rajpurdismissing appIscatjon of the appeJlants for grant pf JetlBr of admjnistratjoh. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, js that the appellonts have filed an c^plication for issuance pf ietfer of administration before the court beiow| stating 1-hat one HariramtJadwqni, after^^^^^ Raipur kept his household articles in the hou^; of flie dppeflants and thereafter h®used to-sitosy in the housg of appellant on his yisit to Raipur. On 2.4.2003 said Hariram Jadwani executed a Wiil in favour of the appellants herein and on the bcxsis of ^id^^^^^W^ fflat they are entitled forhalf of^^ ft India, Rajpup'and thsrefore, letter of adminjstration be issued jn their •favour.' , :i '. •^.i:;,-""': • • .^. ..'"''..•• :'.. .' 4. On ^rvice of summons, Itie res^ndent^^^^^^^ before the court below and f|ted his rep!y denying the fact of executipn of| Will date^ 2A2003 in fcvour of ttie appellants herein and prayed for djsrriissaj of the oippJication. i ^ ^m ^a: ^ ^ "Ste' ^' -a^ Roshari/- 5. Tlie Court below^ (iftsr hearing 1+ie parties in theffl 1tie evidence brought on^^^^^^^^^r^^^ ^^^^^^ ^ 6. As Der orovisions of Section 89 C.P.C., this CourTvidejorderddted 30.3,2011 ferred the matter To^^^^t^ c^unsei jfor thc part^ ^t^leme^/QQr^m^vf^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Coinmjttee for AWiitoring the Mediation C^n1%r.^ T^ 19.4.2011 hasbeensjgnedbythepdrtjes^^^^^a^ Chandra Sharma. 7. Today, both the part^ $mt. AAeena ^isingha^^^^^^^^^^^ pre^nt in oerson aJong wi1ti Itieir respecfjye counsel who jderitified them* Terms of the cwreerTNnt were shown to the partjes^^w^ before this Court that they hc^ are mentjoned jn the agreement date^ Theii'signaturesonthgQ^ 8. In the resuit, vi^ disposg of the instant^^^^^^a^ tnodjfying ttie fmpygned order dated 1&6.2005 in^^te paFties vide agreementdated 19.4.201t. T^AdditionaJtegis^ directed to draw the dee^ shaIJaJsoform&artofthedec^ —^^-.:.''/ • :';.".\;.. 9. At th^js sNge teamedlc^uhseJ for docyments filed by them^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ' 10,The Kegistrv is dlrected to reTurn^^^^^ft r^^pectJveDarti^sybjectto^^t^^^ Sd/- ll.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge