MADHUBALA SHARMA vs KAUSHALYA BAI — 56/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 24. Disposed: Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing on 29th May 2026.
Civil Misc. Non connected (38) - CIVIL MISC (NC)
CNR: RJAL010021602025
Filing Number
1364/2025
Filing Date
26-05-2025
Registration No
56/2025
Registration Date
31-05-2025
Court
DJ ADJ Alwar District HQ
Judge
5-Additional District and Sessions Judge No 03
Decision Date
29th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MADHUBALA SHARMA
Adv. CHANDER MOHAN SHARMA
Respondent(s)
KAUSHALYA BAI
SHANKUNTALA DEVI
RAJ. AVSAN MANDAL
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Additional District and Sessions Judge No 03
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 19-05-2026 | Final arguments |
| 02-05-2026 | Final arguments |
| 10-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 56/2025 Court: District and Sessions Court, Alwar, Rajasthan Decision Date: 29.05.2026 Outcome: The appellate court set aside the lower court's interim stay order dated 24.04.2025. The court found that while a dispute exists over 1.35 square meters of land between adjacent properties (Plot 6/68 and Plot 6/51), the lower court wrongly imposed a complete stay on the entire Plot 6/51. The court restricted the stay order to only the disputed 1.35 square meters, allowing Respondent 3 (Madhubala) to register and construct on the remaining portion of Plot 6/51. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 56/2025 Court: District and Sessions Court, Alwar, Rajasthan Decision Date: 29.05.2026 Outcome: The appellate court set aside the lower court's interim stay order dated 24.04.2025. The court found that while a dispute exists over 1.35 square meters of land between adjacent properties (Plot 6/68 and Plot 6/51), the lower court wrongly imposed a complete stay on the entire Plot 6/51. The court restricted the stay order to only the disputed 1.35 square meters, allowing Respondent 3 (Madhubala) to register and construct on the remaining portion of Plot 6/51. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts