omparkesh bagada vs e-o nagarpalika reengus Advocate - Deepchand Baloda — 54/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section o7r11. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 10th March 2026.
Civil Suit
CNR: RJSK130001152022
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
114/2022
Filing Date
29-09-2022
Registration No
54/2022
Registration Date
29-09-2022
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RINGUS TALUKA HQ
Judge
1-ACJM
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
omparkesh bagada
Adv. Giriraj Singh Tanwar
Respondent(s)
e-o nagarpalika reengus Advocate - Deepchand Baloda
adhyaksh nagarpalika reengus
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ACJM
Disposed
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Awaiting Services of notices/ summons | |
| 12-12-2025 | Awaiting Services of notices/ summons | |
| 20-11-2025 | Awaiting Services of notices/ summons | |
| 20-08-2025 | Awaiting Services of notices/ summons |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Senior Civil Judge at Sikar, Rajasthan dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Sikar regarding contested residential land. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove they had obtained valid building approval from the municipality and did not present any oral or documentary evidence to support their claims, thus deciding all key issues against them. The suit was rejected with each party bearing their own costs, and the plaintiffs were denied any relief or injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Senior Civil Judge at Sikar, Rajasthan dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Sikar regarding contested residential land. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove they had obtained valid building approval from the municipality and did not present any oral or documentary evidence to support their claims, thus deciding all key issues against them. The suit was rejected with each party bearing their own costs, and the plaintiffs were denied any relief or injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts