sundarlal vs sudhir — 34/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 00. Disposed: Contested--Decreed after Full Trial on 19th March 2026.

Civil Suit

CNR: RJDH150000392022

Case disposed

Filing Number

34/2022

Filing Date

08-08-2016

Registration No

34/2022

Registration Date

08-08-2016

Court

CJ JD Saipau Taluka

Judge

1-Civil Judge and JM

Decision Date

19th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Decreed after Full Trial

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 00

Petitioner(s)

sundarlal

Adv. Satya Prakash

Respondent(s)

sudhir

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge and JM

19-03-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

Judgment

26-02-2026

Judgment

05-02-2026

Judgment

29-01-2026

Judgment

Final Orders / Judgements

19-03-2026
Order
19-03-2026
Judgement

Case Summary Court Decision (dated 19.03.2026): The Civil Judge of Dholpur granted a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiff Sunderlal against defendant Sudheer and others, restraining them from making any construction, alteration, or trespassing on disputed agricultural land (Khata No. 175/900 and 176) in village Pureeni. The court found that the plaintiff has established better ownership and possession rights over the disputed property and rejected the defendant's counter-claims due to insufficient evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

25-09-2025
Order
04-10-2025
Order
08-10-2025
Order
30-10-2025
Order
01-11-2025
Order
13-11-2025
Order
04-12-2025
Order
18-12-2025
Order
22-12-2025
Order
08-01-2026
Order
29-01-2026
Order
05-02-2026
Order
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Court Decision (dated 19.03.2026): The Civil Judge of Dholpur granted a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiff Sunderlal against defendant Sudheer and others, restraining them from making any construction, alteration, or trespassing on disputed agricultural land (Khata No. 175/900 and 176) in village Pureeni. The court found that the plaintiff has established better ownership and possession rights over the disputed property and rejected the defendant's counter-claims due to insufficient evidence. 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 Saipau Taluka All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case