ABDUL RAHAMAN vs E.O NAGARPALIKA Advocate - SHRI ANIL KUMAR MISHRA — 208/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 34. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 16th March 2026.
Civil Suit
CNR: RJSK110006862022
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
345/2022
Filing Date
29-05-2019
Registration No
208/2022
Registration Date
29-05-2019
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE FATEHPUR TALUKA HQ
Judge
1-ACJM
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ABDUL RAHAMAN
Adv. MR MUKESH BHATRA
Respondent(s)
E.O NAGARPALIKA Advocate - SHRI ANIL KUMAR MISHRA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ACJM
Disposed
Judgment
Final arguments
Final arguments
Plaintiff Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 09-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 21-02-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 09-02-2026 | Plaintiff Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Court Decision The court dismissed the plaintiffs' injunction suit against illegal commercial construction on residential land in Sikar, Rajasthan. The court found that while defendant no. 3 unlawfully constructed multi-story commercial buildings without municipal permission on residential property, the plaintiffs (Abdul Rahman and Sumer Singh) lacked legal standing as they were not neighbors or affected property owners living adjacent to the disputed site. The court ruled that such encroachment matters fall within the jurisdiction of municipal authorities and the property owner, not distant residents, making the plaintiffs ineligible to pursue the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Court Decision The court dismissed the plaintiffs' injunction suit against illegal commercial construction on residential land in Sikar, Rajasthan. The court found that while defendant no. 3 unlawfully constructed multi-story commercial buildings without municipal permission on residential property, the plaintiffs (Abdul Rahman and Sumer Singh) lacked legal standing as they were not neighbors or affected property owners living adjacent to the disputed site. The court ruled that such encroachment matters fall within the jurisdiction of municipal authorities and the property owner, not distant residents, making the plaintiffs ineligible to pursue the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts