PRAKASH CHAND BAIRWA vs RADHESHYAM BHAMBHI AND OTHERS — 14/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O39, R1, R2. Disposed: Uncontested--Settled by ADR on 09th May 2026.

Civil Misc. Connected (41) - CIVIL MISC (C)

CNR: RJAJ170002792024

Case disposed

Filing Number

103/2024

Filing Date

26-03-2024

Registration No

14/2024

Registration Date

26-03-2024

Court

ADJ KISHANGARH TALUKA

Judge

2-Addl District and Sessions Judge II

Decision Date

09th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Settled by ADR

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O39, R1, R2

Petitioner(s)

PRAKASH CHAND BAIRWA

Adv. PARMANAND SHARMA

Respondent(s)

RADHESHYAM BHAMBHI AND OTHERS

RAJU BAIRWA

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

State

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Addl District and Sessions Judge II

09-05-2026

Disposed

08-04-2026

Compliance

13-03-2026

Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

25-02-2026

Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

19-01-2026

Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

Interim Orders

01-08-2024
Order

Case Summary: Prakash Chand Bairwa v. Radheshyam Bhambhi (14/2024) The court dismissed respondents' application to reject the plaintiff's suit under CPC Order 7, Rule 11, holding that civil courts have jurisdiction over suits alleging fraud and forgery in sale deeds involving agricultural land. The court found the suit triable and rejected precedent arguments that jurisdiction was barred by Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, as the plaintiff held recorded tenure rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Prakash Chand Bairwa v. Radheshyam Bhambhi (14/2024) The court dismissed respondents' application to reject the plaintiff's suit under CPC Order 7, Rule 11, holding that civil courts have jurisdiction over suits alleging fraud and forgery in sale deeds involving agricultural land. The court found the suit triable and rejected precedent arguments that jurisdiction was barred by Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, as the plaintiff held recorded tenure rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

ADJ KISHANGARH TALUKA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case