PHOOLCHAND vs BENIPRASAD — 23/2024
Case under Civil Code Procedure Section APPEAL. Disposed: Contested--Remanded on 07th May 2026.
Civil Regular Appeal - CIVIL REG. APPEAL
CNR: RJAL150005512024
Filing Number
260/2024
Filing Date
04-09-2024
Registration No
23/2024
Registration Date
04-09-2024
Court
ADJ Rajgarh
Judge
1-ADJ Rajgarh
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Remanded
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PHOOLCHAND
Adv. AJAY NIDANIYA
Respondent(s)
BENIPRASAD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ Rajgarh
Disposed
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-04-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
| 16-02-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
| 10-02-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 23/2024: Phoolchand v. Beniprasad Decision (May 7, 2026): The Additional District Judge set aside the lower court's order dated March 22, 2024, finding it violated procedural law and lacked proper evidentiary basis. The court determined that the lower court erroneously decided issues regarding tenancy of a disputed shop, noting that a prior settlement (May 7, 2016) between the same parties on the same property should have precluded a fresh suit. The court remanded the matter with directions to adjudicate a specific issue: whether the tenant completed repairs by June 1, 2016, thereby entitling him to increased rent of ₹1,000/month from June 1, 2016, instead of the previously determined ₹425/month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 23/2024: Phoolchand v. Beniprasad Decision (May 7, 2026): The Additional District Judge set aside the lower court's order dated March 22, 2024, finding it violated procedural law and lacked proper evidentiary basis. The court determined that the lower court erroneously decided issues regarding tenancy of a disputed shop, noting that a prior settlement (May 7, 2016) between the same parties on the same property should have precluded a fresh suit. The court remanded the matter with directions to adjudicate a specific issue: whether the tenant completed repairs by June 1, 2016, thereby entitling him to increased rent of ₹1,000/month from June 1, 2016, instead of the previously determined ₹425/month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts