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
Next Hearing
18th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
443/2022
Filing Date
18-10-2022
Registration No
60/2022
Registration Date
18-10-2022
Court
DJ ADJ Bundi HQ
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mana
Adv. Mahendra Kr. Jain
Respondent(s)
Gopal
Dhapu Bai
Uppanjiyak
Tehsildar Bundi
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge
Plaintiff Evidence
Plaintiff Evidence
Plaintiff Evidence
Plaintiff Evidence
Plaintiff Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Plaintiff Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Plaintiff Evidence | |
| 16-02-2026 | Plaintiff Evidence | |
| 15-12-2025 | Plaintiff Evidence | |
| 06-11-2025 | Plaintiff Evidence |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts