JAKESH KUMAR vs JAGDISH RAJ AND OTHERS — 888/2022

Case under Specific Performance of Contracts Section 1. Status: Order. Next hearing: 24th August 2026.

CS DJ ADJ - CIVIL SUIT FOR DJ ADJ

CNR: DLSW010095532022

Order

Next Hearing

24th August 2026

Filing Number

4086/2022

Filing Date

13-09-2022

Registration No

888/2022

Registration Date

14-09-2022

Court

District and Session Judge, South-West DWK

Judge

437-District Judge

Acts & Sections

Specific performance of Contracts Section 1
possession Section 2
Suit For Declaration Section 3
Injunctions-Both Permanent and Mandatory Section 4

Petitioner(s)

JAKESH KUMAR

Adv. SANJEEV CHAUHAN

Respondent(s)

JAGDISH RAJ AND OTHERS

SUMAN ARYA

SUNIL VERMA

DEVINDER KUMAR

KEWALKRISHAN

VISHAL CHAWLA

SH. BHUPINDER KUMAR VERMA

SUSHMA

Hearing History

Judge: 437-District Judge

11-05-2026

Order

09-04-2026

Order

14-03-2026

Order

02-03-2026

Misc. Arguments

15-12-2025

Misc. Arguments

Interim Orders

22-08-2025
COPY OF ORDER
18-09-2025
COPY OF ORDER
14-03-2026
COPY OF ORDER
11-05-2026
COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Case 888/2022 Summary JAKESH KUMAR v. JAGDISH RAJ AND OTHERS Defendants 4-8's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint was dismissed. The court found the plaint discloses a valid cause of action: Jakesh Kumar entered a registered agreement to sell in 2005 for a DDA flat in Bindapur, paid Rs.60,000, and was put in possession until 2019 when defendants dispossessed him. The court rejected arguments regarding limitation, missing site plan, and lack of cause of action as premature, holding these are mixed questions of law and fact to be determined at trial. Case adjourned to 24.08.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case 888/2022 Summary JAKESH KUMAR v. JAGDISH RAJ AND OTHERS Defendants 4-8's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint was dismissed. The court found the plaint discloses a valid cause of action: Jakesh Kumar entered a registered agreement to sell in 2005 for a DDA flat in Bindapur, paid Rs.60,000, and was put in possession until 2019 when defendants dispossessed him. The court rejected arguments regarding limitation, missing site plan, and lack of cause of action as premature, holding these are mixed questions of law and fact to be determined at trial. Case adjourned to 24.08.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Session Judge, South-West DWK All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case