BIBI KANIJ FATMA vs ANITA DEVI — 92/2021

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 21st May 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 21-May-2026

Title Suit

CNR: BRSR120001582021

Filing Number

158/2021

Filing Date

06-Jul-2021

Registration No

92/2021

Registration Date

15-Jul-2021

Court

Sonepur Civil Division

Judge

2-Munsif

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 9

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BIBI KANIJ FATMA

    Adv. SUBODH KUMAR SINGH

  2. 2.ABDUL KUDDUS

    Adv. SUBODH KUMAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ANITA DEVI

  2. 2.EHSALUL HAQUE

  3. 3.REYAJUL HAQUE

  4. 4.MAJHARUL HAQUE

  5. 5.IJHARUL HAQUE ANSARI

Case History

  1. 21-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Munsif

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Munsif

  4. 21-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Munsif

  5. 15-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Munsif

  6. 04-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Munsif

  7. 30-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Munsif

  8. 25-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Munsif

  9. 21-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Munsif

  10. 17-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Munsif

  11. 12-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Munsif

  12. 08-May-2025

    Evidence

    Munsif

  13. 03-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Munsif

  14. 27-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Munsif

  15. 16-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Munsif

  16. 19-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    Munsif

  17. 14-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Munsif

  18. 04-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Munsif

  19. 26-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Munsif

  20. 05-Sep-2024

    OrderView PDF

    OUTCOME SUMMARY: The court granted the plaintiff's petition to appoint a court commissioner (Advocate Commissioner) to conduct a local inspection of the disputed property (Case No. 92/2021). The court found it necessary to inspect the property's current physical condition on court records to ensure proper adjudication, as defendants had allegedly been altering the land's character through excavation and construction activities. The appointed commissioner, Shri Raju Rajak, must collect a fee of ₹3,000 and the case is adjourned for plaintiff's evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  21. 05-Sep-2024

    Hearing

    Munsif

  22. 22-Aug-2024

    Hearing

    Munsif

  23. 01-Aug-2024

    Hearing

  24. 27-Jun-2024

    Hearing

  25. 30-May-2024

    Hearing

  26. 18-May-2024

    Hearing

    Munsif

  27. 09-May-2024

    Hearing

    Munsif

  28. 28-Mar-2024

    Hearing

    Munsif

  29. 22-Feb-2024

    Hearing

    Munsif

  30. 25-Jan-2024

    Hearing

    Munsif

  31. 21-Dec-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  32. 23-Nov-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  33. 13-Oct-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  34. 22-Sep-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  35. 25-Aug-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  36. 28-Jul-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  37. 30-Jun-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  38. 19-May-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  39. 19-Apr-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  40. 21-Mar-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  41. 02-Mar-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  42. 15-Feb-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  43. 25-Jan-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  44. 04-Jan-2023

    OrderView PDF

  45. 04-Jan-2023

    Hearing

    Munsif

  46. 14-Dec-2022

    Hearing

    Munsif

  47. 09-Nov-2022

    Hearing

    Munsif

  48. 20-Oct-2022

    Hearing

    Munsif

  49. 22-Sep-2022

    Hearing

    Munsif

  50. 24-Aug-2022

    Hearing

    Munsif

  51. 22-Jul-2022

    Hearing

    Munsif

  52. 24-Jun-2022

    Hearing

    Munsif

  53. 17-May-2022

    Hearing

    Munsif

  54. 01-Apr-2022

    Hearing

    Munsif

  55. 18-Feb-2022

    Hearing

    Munsif

  56. 11-Jan-2022

    Hearing

    Munsif

  57. 07-Dec-2021

    Notice (Ready

    Munsif

  58. 24-Nov-2021

    Notice (Ready

    Munsif

  59. 06-Oct-2021

    Notice (Ready

    Munsif

  60. 06-Sep-2021

    Notice (Ready

    Munsif

  61. 22-Jul-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  62. 06-Jul-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 92/2021

casestatus.in Summary

OUTCOME SUMMARY: The court granted the plaintiff's petition to appoint a court commissioner (Advocate Commissioner) to conduct a local inspection of the disputed property (Case No. 92/2021). The court found it necessary to inspect the property's current physical condition on court records to ensure proper adjudication, as defendants had allegedly been altering the land's character through excavation and construction activities. The appointed commissioner, Shri Raju Rajak, must collect a fee of ₹3,000 and the case is adjourned for plaintiff's evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case