AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahinder Narain, J.
(1) Photographs have been filed by the defendants. Counsel for the plaintiff wishes to file photographs. Let the photographs be filed along with index.
(2) On 07.II.1989,byaiiapplicationunderOrder23Rule3 CPC .,suit for partition being Suit No. 1575 of 1988 was disposed, as having been withdrawn.
(3) I.A.9267 of 1991 has been moved by the plaintiff in that suit, as she is being hindered in a Probate Petition pending before the District Judge, Delhi.
(4) In view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC ., only lawful agreements will bind the parties. If the agreement that the probate petition will not be opposed is not lawful. that part of the agreement agreed to between the parties in the suit for partition ,will not bind either of the parties to the suit, and the District Judge before whom the Probate Petition is stated to be pending, will be in a position to either grant or refuse to grant probate of the Will. which is sought to be probated before him. These observations made by me, have been necessitated by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Banwari Lal Vs. Smt. Chando Devi (through L.R.) and another, , particularly paras 9 and 14.
(5) No further orders are required. The application I.A.9267 of 1991 is disposed of, with the aforesaid observations.