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

Case disposed

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1

Petitioner(s)

Vimal Bairwa

Adv. DINESH SHARMA

Respondent(s)

Ramgopal Bairwa

Hearing History

Judge: 1-JM

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

06-04-2026
Judgement

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

CJ JD Indergarh Taluka All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case