Vimal Bairwa vs Ramgopal Bairwa — 14/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 06th April 2026.

Case disposed

Civil Suit

CNR: RJBD150000292024

Filing Number

29/2024

Filing Date

25-Jul-2024

Registration No

14/2024

Registration Date

25-Jul-2024

Court

CJ JD Indergarh Taluka

Judge

1-Jm

Decision Date

06-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vimal Bairwa

    Adv. DINESH SHARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ramgopal Bairwa

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: Vimal Bairwa v. Ramgopal Bairwa (14/2024) Court Decision (06.04.2026): The Civil Judge of Indragarh, Buandi District, Rajasthan, dismissed petitioner Vimal Bairwa's suit for permanent injunction against respondent Ramgopal Bairwa. The court found that Vimal failed to prove his ownership or possession of the disputed agricultural land (1000 sq ft plot) despite claiming to have purchased it on 18.12.2015 and registered it in his father Ramgopal's name. The respondent, as registered proprietor with constructive possession (having built boundary walls, gates, and structures), holds superior legal rights. Vimal could not produce documentary evidence establishing his alleged purchase or payment, making his claim untenable. The court determined Vimal lacks legal standing to seek an injunction restraining the respondent from using the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Jm

  4. 28-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Jm

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Jm

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Jm

  7. 24-Feb-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Jm

  8. 13-Feb-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Jm

  9. 03-Feb-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Jm

  10. 23-Jan-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Jm

  11. 13-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Jm

  12. 09-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Jm

  13. 02-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Jm

  14. 31-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Jm

  15. 19-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Jm

  16. 09-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Jm

  17. 05-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Jm

  18. 15-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Jm

  19. 01-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Jm

  20. 23-May-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Jm

  21. 06-May-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Jm

  22. 19-Apr-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Jm

  23. 29-Mar-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Jm

  24. 12-Mar-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Jm

  25. 28-Feb-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Jm

  26. 18-Feb-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Jm

  27. 04-Feb-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Jm

  28. 04-Jan-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Jm

  29. 06-Dec-2024

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Jm

  30. 26-Nov-2024

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Jm

  31. 19-Nov-2024

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Jm

  32. 08-Oct-2024

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Jm

  33. 10-Sep-2024

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Jm

  34. 12-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  35. 25-Jul-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 14/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Vimal Bairwa v. Ramgopal Bairwa (14/2024) Court Decision (06.04.2026): The Civil Judge of Indragarh, Buandi District, Rajasthan, dismissed petitioner Vimal Bairwa's suit for permanent injunction against respondent Ramgopal Bairwa. The court found that Vimal failed to prove his ownership or possession of the disputed agricultural land (1000 sq ft plot) despite claiming to have purchased it on 18.12.2015 and registered it in his father Ramgopal's name. The respondent, as registered proprietor with constructive possession (having built boundary walls, gates, and structures), holds superior legal rights. Vimal could not produce documentary evidence establishing his alleged purchase or payment, making his claim untenable. The court determined Vimal lacks legal standing to seek an injunction restraining the respondent from using the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case