Mana vs Gopal — 60/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R11. Status: Plaintiff Evidence. Next hearing: 18th May 2026.
Civil Suit
CNR: RJBD010026162022
Filing Number
443/2022
Filing Date
18-Oct-2022
Registration No
60/2022
Registration Date
18-Oct-2022
Court
DJ ADJ Bundi HQ
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Last updated 05-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Mana
Adv. Mahendra Kr. Jain
Respondent(s)
-
1.Gopal
-
2.Dhapu Bai
-
3.Uppanjiyak
-
4.Tehsildar Bundi
Case History
-
18-May-2026
Next hearingPending
-
02-Apr-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Feb-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
District and Sessions Judge
-
15-Dec-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
District and Sessions Judge
-
06-Nov-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
District and Sessions Judge
-
23-Sep-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
District and Sessions Judge
-
08-Sep-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
District and Sessions Judge
-
31-Jul-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
District and Sessions Judge
-
20-May-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
District and Sessions Judge
-
01-Apr-2025
Issues
District and Sessions Judge
-
01-Mar-2025
Case Summary Civil Case No. 60/2022 - District Court, Bundi, Rajasthan Order Date: 01-03-2025 The petition filed by respondent no. 2 (Dhapu Bai) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking to reject the registered sale deed has been dismissed. The court found that although the plaintiff failed to pay adequate court fees on the suit value, this deficiency alone does not warrant dismissal of the suit; the plaintiff should be directed to pay the shortfall. The court held that respondent no. 2 failed to file a substantive reply to the main suit, and the preliminary objection regarding court fees cannot be upheld to dismiss the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Mar-2025
Written Statement
District and Sessions Judge
-
14-Feb-2025
Orders
District and Sessions Judge
-
30-Jan-2025
Orders
District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Dec-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District and Sessions Judge
-
24-Oct-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District and Sessions Judge
-
05-Sep-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District and Sessions Judge
-
29-Jul-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District and Sessions Judge
-
23-May-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District and Sessions Judge
-
09-Apr-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District and Sessions Judge
-
29-Feb-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Jan-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District and Sessions Judge
-
18-Dec-2023
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District and Sessions Judge
-
04-Nov-2023
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District and Sessions Judge
-
20-Oct-2023
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
ADJ I
-
12-Sep-2023
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
ADJ I
-
15-Jul-2023
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
ADJ I
-
11-May-2023
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
ADJ I
-
09-Mar-2023
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
ADJ I
-
20-Feb-2023
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
ADJ I
-
10-Feb-2023
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
ADJ I
-
16-Jan-2023
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
ADJ I
-
09-Jan-2023
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
ADJ I
-
09-Dec-2022
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
ADJ I
-
14-Nov-2022
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
ADJ I
-
28-Oct-2022
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
ADJ I
-
18-Oct-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Oct-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 60/2022
Case Summary Civil Case No. 60/2022 - District Court, Bundi, Rajasthan Order Date: 01-03-2025 The petition filed by respondent no. 2 (Dhapu Bai) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking to reject the registered sale deed has been dismissed. The court found that although the plaintiff failed to pay adequate court fees on the suit value, this deficiency alone does not warrant dismissal of the suit; the plaintiff should be directed to pay the shortfall. The court held that respondent no. 2 failed to file a substantive reply to the main suit, and the preliminary objection regarding court fees cannot be upheld to dismiss the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts