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.
Civil Suit
CNR: RJBD150000292024
Filing Number
29/2024
Filing Date
25-07-2024
Registration No
14/2024
Registration Date
25-07-2024
Court
CJ JD Indergarh Taluka
Judge
1-JM
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vimal Bairwa
Adv. DINESH SHARMA
Respondent(s)
Ramgopal Bairwa
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JM
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Defendant Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 24-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 24-02-2026 | Defendant Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts