SAKALDEV RAY vs SURESH YADAV AND OTHER — 9/2018

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 24-Apr-2026 this date has passed

Title Suit

CNR: BREC320000212018

Filing Number

57/2018

Filing Date

01-Jun-2018

Registration No

9/2018

Registration Date

01-Jun-2018

Court

Areraj Civil Division

Judge

1-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate -I

Last updated 24-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAKALDEV RAY

    Adv. NA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SURESH YADAV AND OTHER

Case History

  1. 24-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate -I

  3. 04-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate -I

  4. 22-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate -I

  5. 14-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate -I

  6. 27-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate -I

  7. 09-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate -I

  8. 28-May-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate -I

  9. 09-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate -I

  10. 15-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  11. 14-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  12. 10-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  13. 22-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  14. 09-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  15. 29-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  16. 01-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  17. 11-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  18. 27-May-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  19. 01-May-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  20. 22-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  21. 18-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  22. 04-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  23. 27-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  24. 11-Dec-2023

    OrderView PDF

    The plaintiff's application to amend the plaint under CPC Order 6 Rule 17 is dismissed/rejected. The court found that while the amendment request appeared to be formal in nature, the case is already five years old with evidence proceedings underway, and allowing such amendments would alter the fundamental nature of the suit. The court held that the plaintiff should have presented the plaint more carefully and with proper diligence from the outset, and therefore the amendment application cannot be permitted at this stage of proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  25. 11-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  26. 28-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  27. 12-Sep-2023

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  28. 08-Aug-2023

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  29. 10-Jul-2023

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  30. 06-Mar-2023

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  31. 02-Jan-2023

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  32. 05-Dec-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  33. 27-Sep-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  34. 11-Aug-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  35. 04-Jul-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  36. 31-May-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  37. 04-Apr-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  38. 26-Feb-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  39. 11-Feb-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  40. 21-Jan-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  41. 22-Dec-2021

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  42. 01-Dec-2021

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  43. 26-Oct-2021

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  44. 07-Sep-2021

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  45. 27-Jul-2021

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  46. 29-Jun-2021

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  47. 01-Jun-2021

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  48. 27-Apr-2021

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  49. 06-Apr-2021

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  50. 10-Mar-2021

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  51. 23-Feb-2021

    Evidence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  52. 23-Jan-2021

    Order

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  53. 09-Dec-2020

    Order

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  54. 30-Sep-2020

    Appearence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  55. 12-Aug-2020

    Appearence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  56. 17-Jun-2020

    Appearence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  57. 06-May-2020

    Appearence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  58. 08-Apr-2020

    Appearence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  59. 21-Mar-2020

    Appearence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  60. 26-Feb-2020

    Appearence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  61. 12-Feb-2020

    Appearence

    Sub Judge-3-Cum-Acjm

  62. 16-Dec-2019

    Appearence

    Sub Judge

  63. 25-Nov-2019

    Appearence

    Sub Judge

  64. 23-Oct-2019

    Appearence

    Sub Judge

  65. 22-Oct-2019

    Appearence

    Sub Judge

  66. 16-Sep-2019

    Appearence

    Sub Judge

  67. 21-Aug-2019

    Appearence

    Sub Judge

  68. 18-Jun-2019

    Appearence

    Sub Judge

  69. 13-May-2019

    Appearence

    Sub Judge

  70. 17-Apr-2019

    Appearence

    Sub Judge

  71. 12-Mar-2019

    Appearence

    Sub Judge

  72. 05-Feb-2019

    Appearence

    Sub Judge

  73. 21-Jan-2019

    Appearence

    Sub Judge

  74. 02-Jan-2019

    Appearence

    Sub Judge

  75. 10-Dec-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  76. 01-Jun-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 9/2018

casestatus.in Summary

The plaintiff's application to amend the plaint under CPC Order 6 Rule 17 is dismissed/rejected. The court found that while the amendment request appeared to be formal in nature, the case is already five years old with evidence proceedings underway, and allowing such amendments would alter the fundamental nature of the suit. The court held that the plaintiff should have presented the plaint more carefully and with proper diligence from the outset, and therefore the amendment application cannot be permitted at this stage of proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case