SHUBHASH vs PHOOLA RAM Advocate - SHRI MUKESH BHATARA — 313/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 34. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 10th March 2026.
Civil Suit
CNR: RJSK110009442022
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
476/2022
Filing Date
17-05-2019
Registration No
313/2022
Registration Date
17-05-2019
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE FATEHPUR TALUKA HQ
Judge
1-ACJM
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHUBHASH
Adv. MR KAPIL DAHIYA
Respondent(s)
PHOOLA RAM Advocate - SHRI MUKESH BHATARA
Bhojraj
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ACJM
Disposed
Judgment
Final arguments
Defendant Evidence
Defendant Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 18-02-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 07-02-2026 | Defendant Evidence | |
| 30-01-2026 | Defendant Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Senior Civil Judge of Fatehpur dismissed the plaintiff Subhash's suit for permanent injunction against defendants Fullaram and others regarding disputed agricultural plots (1, 2, 3, and 4). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish valid and established possession of plots 1, 2, and 4 on the date of the suit, as he could not produce any documentary evidence of ownership or possession despite claiming to have purchased them through an unregistered deed from old survey number 347. Consequently, both the plaintiff's suit and defendant 1's counter-claim were rejected, with each party bearing their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Senior Civil Judge of Fatehpur dismissed the plaintiff Subhash's suit for permanent injunction against defendants Fullaram and others regarding disputed agricultural plots (1, 2, 3, and 4). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish valid and established possession of plots 1, 2, and 4 on the date of the suit, as he could not produce any documentary evidence of ownership or possession despite claiming to have purchased them through an unregistered deed from old survey number 347. Consequently, both the plaintiff's suit and defendant 1's counter-claim were rejected, with each party bearing their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts