RAMLA vs GIRRAJ ETC — 33/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section CIVILSUIT. Disposed: Contested--Decreed after Full Trial on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

Civil Suit

CNR: RJBH100002382024

Filing Number

130/2024

Filing Date

30-May-2024

Registration No

33/2024

Registration Date

30-May-2024

Court

CJ SD Weir Taluka

Judge

1-Acjm No. 01

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Decreed after Full Trial

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section CIVILSUIT

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMLA

    Adv. GOPAL RAM SHARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GIRRAJ ETC

  2. 2.SONDEI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary of Court Decision The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction (Case No. 38/2024) filed against the defendants regarding a disputed shared lane (chowk) leading to the plaintiff's residential property in Kherli village, Vair, Bharatpur district. The court found that the defendants' property boundaries and the shared pathway had been properly established through documentary evidence (maps and construction permits dated 1983), and that the plaintiff failed to prove encroachment on a common lane. The court partially granted the defendants' counter-claim, restraining the plaintiff from obstructing the defendants' use and construction rights within their demarcated property area (87×31.6 feet), while rejecting claims regarding complete removal of plaintiff's structures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm No. 01

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm No. 01

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm No. 01

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm No. 01

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  8. 23-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  9. 18-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  10. 12-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  11. 10-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  12. 07-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  13. 05-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  14. 02-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  15. 31-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  16. 29-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  17. 22-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  18. 21-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  19. 22-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  20. 03-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  21. 26-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  22. 18-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  23. 08-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No. 01

  24. 06-May-2025

    Issues

    Acjm No. 01

  25. 24-Mar-2025

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No. 01

  26. 06-Mar-2025

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No. 01

  27. 30-Jan-2025

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No. 01

  28. 20-Dec-2024

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No. 01

  29. 22-Nov-2024

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No. 01

  30. 01-Oct-2024

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No. 01

  31. 28-Sep-2024

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No. 01

  32. 13-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 30-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 33/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Court Decision The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction (Case No. 38/2024) filed against the defendants regarding a disputed shared lane (chowk) leading to the plaintiff's residential property in Kherli village, Vair, Bharatpur district. The court found that the defendants' property boundaries and the shared pathway had been properly established through documentary evidence (maps and construction permits dated 1983), and that the plaintiff failed to prove encroachment on a common lane. The court partially granted the defendants' counter-claim, restraining the plaintiff from obstructing the defendants' use and construction rights within their demarcated property area (87×31.6 feet), while rejecting claims regarding complete removal of plaintiff's structures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case