Kailash vs Sub Divisonal Magistrate — 45/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39R1,2,. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed otherwise on 10th April 2026.
Civil Misc. Connected (41) - CIVIL MISC (C)
CNR: RJSK130001022020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
102/2020
Filing Date
19-08-2020
Registration No
45/2020
Registration Date
20-08-2020
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RINGUS TALUKA HQ
Judge
1-ACJM
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed otherwise
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kailash
Adv. Raghunath Singh Shekhawat
Banshidhar
Adv. Raghunath Singh Shekhawat
Girdhari
Adv. Raghunath Singh Shekhawat
Hanumaan
Adv. Raghunath Singh Shekhawat
Respondent(s)
Sub Divisonal Magistrate
Tahsildar
Patwari Halaka
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ACJM
Disposed
Orders
Orders
Orders
Orders
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-04-2026 | Orders | |
| 24-03-2026 | Orders | |
| 17-03-2026 | Orders | |
| 10-03-2026 | Orders |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Senior Civil Judge of Sikar (Rajasthan) rejected the plaintiffs' petition for a temporary injunction against land record modifications. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as the disputed pathway was a pre-existing, customary route that was legally documented in revenue records following proper statutory procedures under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and Rules. The court determined that the balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiffs and that they could not claim irreparable injury, thereby dismissing their application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Senior Civil Judge of Sikar (Rajasthan) rejected the plaintiffs' petition for a temporary injunction against land record modifications. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as the disputed pathway was a pre-existing, customary route that was legally documented in revenue records following proper statutory procedures under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and Rules. The court determined that the balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiffs and that they could not claim irreparable injury, thereby dismissing their application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts