NATHILAL vs BANGALI Advocate - SURESH SRIVASTAVA — 24/2017

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

Civil Suit

CNR: RJDH070003262017

Filing Number

24/2017

Filing Date

12-Dec-2017

Registration No

24/2017

Registration Date

12-Dec-2017

Court

CJ SD Dholpur Bari HQ

Judge

5-Acjm No 03

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NATHILAL

    Adv. OMPRAKASH AWASTHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BANGALI Advocate - SURESH SRIVASTAVA

  2. 2.MUKESH

  3. 3.RAMSEVAK

  4. 4.SATISH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgementView PDF

    Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in this land dispute case. The court held that while the plaintiff established ownership rights over plot number 634 (a well situated in village Alogarh), he failed to prove ownership over plot number 633, which is government land. Since the disputed property relates to agricultural land, the court found it lacks jurisdiction and declined to grant the reliefs sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm No 03

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  5. 12-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  6. 28-Jan-2026

    OrderView PDF

  7. 28-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  8. 12-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  9. 24-Dec-2025

    OrderView PDF

  10. 24-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  11. 11-Dec-2025

    OrderView PDF

  12. 11-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  13. 26-Nov-2025

    OrderView PDF

  14. 26-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  15. 12-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  16. 28-Oct-2025

    OrderView PDF

  17. 28-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  18. 08-Oct-2025

    OrderView PDF

  19. 08-Oct-2025

    OrderView PDF

  20. 08-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  21. 17-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  22. 03-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  23. 20-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  24. 12-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  25. 11-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  26. 30-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  27. 09-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  28. 28-May-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  29. 19-May-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  30. 12-May-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  31. 21-Apr-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  32. 19-Feb-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  33. 11-Dec-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 03

  34. 14-Oct-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  35. 28-Aug-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  36. 03-Jul-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  37. 13-May-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  38. 20-Mar-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  39. 05-Feb-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  40. 24-Jan-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  41. 17-Jan-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  42. 08-Nov-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  43. 27-Sep-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  44. 16-Aug-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  45. 07-Jul-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  46. 24-May-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  47. 10-Apr-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  48. 06-Apr-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  49. 07-Dec-2022

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  50. 19-Oct-2022

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  51. 28-Sep-2022

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  52. 24-Aug-2022

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  53. 13-Jul-2022

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  54. 04-May-2022

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Acjm No 01

  55. 09-Mar-2022

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  56. 18-Feb-2022

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  57. 15-Feb-2022

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  58. 09-Feb-2022

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  59. 05-Jan-2022

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  60. 15-Dec-2021

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  61. 06-Oct-2021

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  62. 25-Aug-2021

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  63. 23-Aug-2021

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  64. 10-Jul-2021

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  65. 05-May-2021

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  66. 11-Feb-2021

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  67. 11-Nov-2020

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  68. 15-Sep-2020

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  69. 10-Jul-2020

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  70. 05-May-2020

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  71. 21-Mar-2020

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  72. 18-Dec-2019

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  73. 06-Nov-2019

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    Acjm No 01

  74. 17-Sep-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  75. 12-Dec-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. 24/2017

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in this land dispute case. The court held that while the plaintiff established ownership rights over plot number 634 (a well situated in village Alogarh), he failed to prove ownership over plot number 633, which is government land. Since the disputed property relates to agricultural land, the court found it lacks jurisdiction and declined to grant the reliefs sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case