HEMLATA vs CHANDMAL CHOPRA 9 Advocate - N.C.MAEHTA — 39/2014

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1. Status: Plaintiff Evidence. Next hearing: 04th July 2026.

Plaintiff Evidence Next hearing 04-Jul-2026 this date has passed

PARTION SUIT / TITLE PARTION SUIT - PARTION SUIT / TITLE PARTION S

CNR: RJBE010004392011

Filing Number

1475/2014

Filing Date

17-Dec-2011

Registration No

39/2014

Registration Date

03-Dec-2011

Court

DJ ADJ-BEAWAR District HQ

Judge

2-Addl District and Sessions Judge II

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HEMLATA

    Adv. S.K.JAIN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.CHANDMAL CHOPRA 9 Advocate - N.C.MAEHTA

Case History

  1. 04-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 26-May-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  3. 20-May-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  4. 11-May-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  5. 04-May-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  6. 02-May-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  7. 23-Apr-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  8. 09-Apr-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  9. 01-Apr-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  10. 16-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  11. 21-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  12. 09-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  13. 29-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  14. 12-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  15. 15-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  16. 06-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  17. 24-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  18. 17-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  19. 13-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  20. 06-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  21. 29-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  22. 28-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  23. 15-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 30-Jul-2025

    View PDF

    Summary of Case 39/2014: Hemlata v. Chandmal Chopra Court: District Court, Biyawar (Additional District Judge No. 2) Order Date: 30 July 2025 Outcome: The petitioner Hemlata's application under Section 65-66 of the Indian Evidence Act (read with Section 151 CrPC, dated 03-05-2025) was ALLOWED. The court granted permission for secondary evidence in the form of photocopies of a will dated 26-05-1992 and a certified copy of a sale deed dated 26-11-2011 to be admitted as evidence. The court found that the originals were inaccessible (held by Respondent No. 6) and that the conditions under Section 65 of the Evidence Act were satisfied, making secondary evidence admissible to establish the existence, condition, and contents of these crucial documents in the property dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  25. 23-Jul-2024
  26. 17-Dec-2011

    Case filed

    Registration No. 39/2014

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 39/2014: Hemlata v. Chandmal Chopra Court: District Court, Biyawar (Additional District Judge No. 2) Order Date: 30 July 2025 Outcome: The petitioner Hemlata's application under Section 65-66 of the Indian Evidence Act (read with Section 151 CrPC, dated 03-05-2025) was ALLOWED. The court granted permission for secondary evidence in the form of photocopies of a will dated 26-05-1992 and a certified copy of a sale deed dated 26-11-2011 to be admitted as evidence. The court found that the originals were inaccessible (held by Respondent No. 6) and that the conditions under Section 65 of the Evidence Act were satisfied, making secondary evidence admissible to establish the existence, condition, and contents of these crucial documents in the property dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case