VINOD BHAGAT vs DAWARIK PRASAD BHAGAT — 25/2007

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.

Arguments Next hearing 15-Jun-2026 this date has passed

Title Suit

CNR: BRKT120000152007

Filing Number

25/2007

Filing Date

03-Mar-2007

Registration No

25/2007

Registration Date

03-Mar-2007

Court

Barsoi Civil Division

Judge

1-Sub judge

Last updated 17-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VINOD BHAGAT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DAWARIK PRASAD BHAGAT

Case History

  1. 15-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 14-May-2026

    Arguments

    Sub judge

  3. 07-May-2026

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  4. 23-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  5. 09-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  6. 26-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  8. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  9. 26-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  10. 19-Feb-2026

    Order

    Sub judge

  11. 09-Feb-2026

    Order

    Sub judge

  12. 02-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  13. 29-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  14. 22-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  15. 21-Jan-2026

    Rejoinder

    Sub judge

  16. 19-Jan-2026

    Rejoinder

    Sub judge

  17. 12-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  18. 07-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  19. 05-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  20. 03-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  21. 22-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  22. 20-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  23. 18-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  24. 17-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  25. 15-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  26. 17-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  27. 13-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  28. 01-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Sub judge

  29. 28-Jul-2025

    Stayed U./S.10 Of CPC

    Sub judge

  30. 03-May-2025

    Stayed U./S.10 Of CPC

    Sub judge

  31. 15-Feb-2025

    Stayed U./S.10 Of CPC

    Sub judge

  32. 23-Nov-2024

    Stayed U./S.10 Of CPC

    Sub judge

  33. 07-Sep-2024

    Stayed U./S.10 Of CPC

    Sub judge

  34. 26-Jun-2024

    Stayed U./S.10 Of CPC

    Sub judge

  35. 06-May-2024

    Stayed U./S.10 Of CPC

    Sub judge

  36. 04-Mar-2024

    Stayed U./S.10 Of CPC

    Sub judge

  37. 08-Jan-2024

    Stayed U./S.10 Of CPC

    Sub judge

  38. 06-Nov-2023

    Stayed U./S.10 Of CPC

    Sub judge

  39. 25-Sep-2023

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  40. 21-Aug-2023

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  41. 17-Jul-2023

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  42. 05-Jun-2023

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  43. 24-Apr-2023

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  44. 13-Mar-2023

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  45. 04-Feb-2023

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  46. 28-Nov-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  47. 07-Nov-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  48. 20-Oct-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  49. 19-Sep-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  50. 29-Aug-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  51. 08-Aug-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  52. 27-Jul-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  53. 11-Jul-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  54. 06-Jun-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  55. 27-Apr-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  56. 30-Mar-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  57. 14-Mar-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  58. 21-Feb-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  59. 17-Jan-2022

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  60. 20-Dec-2021

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: The plaintiff's application for amendment to the suit petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed/rejected. The court found that the plaintiff sought to introduce new land parcels and facts into the suit filed in 2007 after plaintiff's evidence was closed in 2018, which would fundamentally alter the nature of the suit—the disputed property increased from 1.81 acres to 4.13 acres. The court held the amendment application was not maintainable as it was unjustified and the plaintiff had ample opportunity to file such amendments earlier but failed to do so. The case is now set for defendant's evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  61. 20-Dec-2021

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  62. 15-Dec-2021

    Order

    Sub judge

  63. 30-Sep-2021

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  64. 13-Sep-2021

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  65. 26-Aug-2021

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  66. 15-Jul-2021

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  67. 17-Jun-2021

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  68. 20-May-2021

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  69. 22-Apr-2021

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  70. 04-Mar-2021

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  71. 01-Mar-2021

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  72. 04-Feb-2021

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  73. 17-Dec-2020

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  74. 26-Nov-2020

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  75. 24-Sep-2020

    Hearing

    Munsif

  76. 06-Aug-2020

    Hearing

    Munsif

  77. 02-Jul-2020

    Hearing

    Munsif

  78. 16-Apr-2020

    Hearing

    Munsif

  79. 27-Feb-2020

    Hearing

    Munsif

  80. 28-Jan-2020

    Hearing

    Munsif

  81. 30-Oct-2019

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  82. 04-Sep-2019

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  83. 30-Jul-2019

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  84. 30-May-2019

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  85. 02-May-2019

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  86. 13-Mar-2019

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  87. 13-Feb-2019

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  88. 30-Jan-2019

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  89. 02-Jan-2019

    Hearing

    Sub judge

  90. 05-Nov-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  91. 03-Mar-2007

    Case filed

    Registration No. 25/2007

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The plaintiff's application for amendment to the suit petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed/rejected. The court found that the plaintiff sought to introduce new land parcels and facts into the suit filed in 2007 after plaintiff's evidence was closed in 2018, which would fundamentally alter the nature of the suit—the disputed property increased from 1.81 acres to 4.13 acres. The court held the amendment application was not maintainable as it was unjustified and the plaintiff had ample opportunity to file such amendments earlier but failed to do so. The case is now set for defendant's evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case