DINESH KUMAR vs SAGAR KANWAR — 11/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section APPEAL. Disposed: Contested--Appeal Allowed, Cross Objection Allowed on 17th March 2026.
Civil Misc. Appeal - CIVIL MISC APPEAL
CNR: RJBA010012022022
Filing Number
320/2022
Filing Date
30-09-2022
Registration No
11/2022
Registration Date
30-09-2022
Court
DJ ADJ Balotra District HQ
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Appeal Allowed, Cross Objection Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DINESH KUMAR
Adv. ACHLA RAM THORY
Respondent(s)
SAGAR KANWAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Judgment
Final arguments
Final arguments
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 27-01-2026 | Final arguments |
| 16-01-2026 | Final arguments |
| 31-10-2025 | Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Judge of Balotara dismissed Dinesh Kumar's appeal against an August 4, 2022 interim injunction order granted to Sagar Kanwar. The court found that Kanwar established a prima facie case of ownership over a 1,350 square-foot plot through her father's documented transfer, while Kumar failed to substantiate his claim of peaceful possession or established rights over the disputed property. The appeal was rejected as Kumar lacked documentary evidence and had no legal standing to challenge the injunction protecting Kanwar's property interests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The District Judge of Balotara dismissed Dinesh Kumar's appeal against an August 4, 2022 interim injunction order granted to Sagar Kanwar. The court found that Kanwar established a prima facie case of ownership over a 1,350 square-foot plot through her father's documented transfer, while Kumar failed to substantiate his claim of peaceful possession or established rights over the disputed property. The appeal was rejected as Kumar lacked documentary evidence and had no legal standing to challenge the injunction protecting Kanwar's property interests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts