DINESH KUMAR vs VIDYAWATI AND OTHERS — 563/2021
Case under Recovery of Money Section 7. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 16th March 2026.
CS - CIVIL SUIT FOR DJ ADJ
CNR: DLET010083062021
Filing Number
4544/2021
Filing Date
03-Dec-2021
Registration No
563/2021
Registration Date
03-Dec-2021
Court
District and Sessions Judge, East, KKD
Judge
419-District Judge
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 12-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DINESH KUMAR
Adv. R. K.THAKUR
Respondent(s)
-
1.VIDYAWATI AND OTHERS
-
2.MS. SUSHMA SHARMA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
16-Mar-2026
Copy Of JudgmentView PDF
The court dismissed plaintiff Dinesh Kumar's suit seeking recovery of Rs. 5,96,216 claiming it was a friendly loan advanced to defendants Vidyawati and Sushma Sharma. The court found the plaintiff failed to prove the loan's existence, noting the bank statements were inadmissible without a mandatory Section 65B certificate, no written loan agreement existed, and material inconsistencies existed in witness testimonies. Additionally, earlier transactions were barred by limitation as no acknowledgment of liability was shown. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge
-
24-Feb-2026
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
24-Feb-2026
Order
District Judge
-
03-Feb-2026
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
03-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
District Judge
-
06-Jan-2026
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
06-Jan-2026
Final Arguments
District Judge
-
11-Dec-2025
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
11-Dec-2025
Final Arguments
District Judge
-
12-Nov-2025
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
12-Nov-2025
Final Arguments
District Judge
-
17-Jul-2025
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
17-Jul-2025
Defendant/Respondent Evidence
District Judge
-
29-May-2025
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
29-May-2025
Defendant/Respondent Evidence
District Judge
-
04-Mar-2025
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
04-Mar-2025
Defendant/Respondent Evidence
District Judge
-
02-Dec-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
02-Dec-2024
Defendant/Respondent Evidence
District Judge
-
15-Oct-2024
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
15-Oct-2024
Defendant/Respondent Evidence
District Judge
-
14-Aug-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
14-Aug-2024
Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence
District Judge
-
10-Jul-2024
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
10-Jul-2024
Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence
District Judge
-
29-Apr-2024
Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence
District Judge
-
23-Jan-2024
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
23-Jan-2024
Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence
District Judge
-
17-Oct-2023
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
17-Oct-2023
Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence
District Judge
-
24-May-2023
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
24-May-2023
Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence
District Judge
-
03-Apr-2023
Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence
District Judge
-
06-Jan-2023
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
06-Jan-2023
Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence
District Judge
-
24-Sep-2022
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
24-Sep-2022
Misc. cases
Principal District and Sessions Judge, East District
-
14-Jul-2022
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
14-Jul-2022
Misc. cases
Principal District and Sessions Judge, East District
-
26-May-2022
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
26-May-2022
Misc. cases
Principal District and Sessions Judge, East District
-
24-Mar-2022
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
24-Mar-2022
Misc. cases
Principal District and Sessions Judge, East District
-
29-Jan-2022
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
29-Jan-2022
Misc. cases
Principal District and Sessions Judge, East District
-
04-Dec-2021
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
04-Dec-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Dec-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 563/2021
The court dismissed plaintiff Dinesh Kumar's suit seeking recovery of Rs. 5,96,216 claiming it was a friendly loan advanced to defendants Vidyawati and Sushma Sharma. The court found the plaintiff failed to prove the loan's existence, noting the bank statements were inadmissible without a mandatory Section 65B certificate, no written loan agreement existed, and material inconsistencies existed in witness testimonies. Additionally, earlier transactions were barred by limitation as no acknowledgment of liability was shown. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts