KRAPAL vs SUKHLAL — 19/2026
Case under Civil Code Procedure Section O-41, R-5 CPC. Disposed: Uncontested--Disposed otherwise on 20th April 2026.
Civil Misc. Connected (41) - CIVIL MISC (C)
CNR: RJAL150001742026
Filing Number
117/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
19/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
Court
ADJ Rajgarh
Judge
1-ADJ Rajgarh
Decision Date
20th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Disposed otherwise
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KRAPAL
Adv. SATISH KUMAR SHARMA
Respondent(s)
SUKHLAL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ Rajgarh
Disposed
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-04-2026 | Awaiting Services of notices/ summons |
| 25-03-2026 | Awaiting Services of notices/ summons |
| 18-03-2026 | Awaiting Services of notices/ summons |
| 16-03-2026 | Awaiting Services of notices/ summons |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: KRAPAL v. SUKHLAL (Case No. 19/2026) The court dismissed appellant Krapal's civil appeal against respondent Sukhlal's injunction suit regarding a disputed residential land plot. The lower court had ordered Krapal to remove unauthorized construction (2 sq ft encroachment and a boundary wall) made on Sukhlal's property within 2 months, with an injunction against further construction. The appellate court upheld this decision, finding the encroachment unlawful and rejecting Krapal's arguments that procedural delays and inadequate legal representation warranted reconsideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: KRAPAL v. SUKHLAL (Case No. 19/2026) The court dismissed appellant Krapal's civil appeal against respondent Sukhlal's injunction suit regarding a disputed residential land plot. The lower court had ordered Krapal to remove unauthorized construction (2 sq ft encroachment and a boundary wall) made on Sukhlal's property within 2 months, with an injunction against further construction. The appellate court upheld this decision, finding the encroachment unlawful and rejecting Krapal's arguments that procedural delays and inadequate legal representation warranted reconsideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts