JAGDISH vs SHRIRAM AND ORS Advocate - SH. SUBASH KUMAWAT — 78/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section CPC. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 18th April 2026.
Civil Regular Appeal - CIVIL REG. APPEAL
CNR: RJJH060012932019
Filing Number
534/2019
Filing Date
21-11-2019
Registration No
78/2019
Registration Date
21-11-2019
Court
ADJ Khetri Taluka HQ
Judge
1-ADJ I
Decision Date
18th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAGDISH
Adv. SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR SAROLIYA
Respondent(s)
SHRIRAM AND ORS Advocate - SH. SUBASH KUMAWAT
NAGARPALIKA KHETRI
ADHAYKSH NAGARPALIKA KHETRI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ I
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 10-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 06-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 30-03-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: Jagdish v. Shriram and Others (Case 78/2019) The District Court dismissed Jagdish's appeal against a civil judgment regarding a disputed roadway in Ward 20, Khetri. Jagdish claimed defendant Shriram illegally obstructed a 15-foot access road (13 feet on one side) by constructing a pit, platform, and wall, reducing it to 6-7 feet. The court found that both Jagdish and Shriram had independently blocked the road with their own barriers, so Shriram alone was not responsible for the obstruction. The appeal was rejected as Jagdish failed to prove the encroachment claims against the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: Jagdish v. Shriram and Others (Case 78/2019) The District Court dismissed Jagdish's appeal against a civil judgment regarding a disputed roadway in Ward 20, Khetri. Jagdish claimed defendant Shriram illegally obstructed a 15-foot access road (13 feet on one side) by constructing a pit, platform, and wall, reducing it to 6-7 feet. The court found that both Jagdish and Shriram had independently blocked the road with their own barriers, so Shriram alone was not responsible for the obstruction. The appeal was rejected as Jagdish failed to prove the encroachment claims against the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts