Bhuralal Brahman ETC vs Arjun Das Veragi ETC — 52/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O39,R1,R2. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 01st April 2026.
Civil Misc. Connected (41) - CIVIL MISC (C)
CNR: RJPG080001202020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
120/2020
Filing Date
05-11-2020
Registration No
52/2020
Registration Date
05-11-2020
Court
CJ SD ACJM TALUKACOURT CHHOTISADARI
Judge
9-Senior Civil Judge and ACJM
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhuralal Brahman ETC
Adv. SH. ANKIT PALIWAL
Respondent(s)
Arjun Das Veragi ETC
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Senior Civil Judge and ACJM
Disposed
Reply of Application/ Steps by parties
Reply of Application/ Steps by parties
Reply of Application/ Steps by parties
Reply of Application/ Steps by parties
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-03-2026 | Reply of Application/ Steps by parties | |
| 10-03-2026 | Reply of Application/ Steps by parties | |
| 09-03-2026 | Reply of Application/ Steps by parties | |
| 18-02-2026 | Reply of Application/ Steps by parties |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction and possession of a four-sided temple property in village Rambhavli, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie possession of the disputed property through documentary evidence. The court held that since the defendants were already in possession with registered sale deeds dated 1976 and 2020, the plaintiffs' claim lacked merit, and the balance of convenience did not favor granting the injunction against the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction and possession of a four-sided temple property in village Rambhavli, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie possession of the disputed property through documentary evidence. The court held that since the defendants were already in possession with registered sale deeds dated 1976 and 2020, the plaintiffs' claim lacked merit, and the balance of convenience did not favor granting the injunction 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