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

Case disposed

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section 34

Petitioner(s)

SHUBHASH

Adv. MR KAPIL DAHIYA

Respondent(s)

PHOOLA RAM Advocate - SHRI MUKESH BHATARA

Bhojraj

Hearing History

Judge: 1-ACJM

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

10-03-2026
Judgement

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE FATEHPUR TALUKA HQ All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case