Jairam Kaswa vs Executive officer Advocate - OMPRAKASH BHAKAR — 99/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Disposed: Contested--Decreed after Full Trial on 08th April 2026.
Civil Suit O
CNR: RJSK210002872021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
172/2021
Filing Date
07-04-2017
Registration No
99/2021
Registration Date
07-04-2017
Court
CJ JD LAXMANAGARH TALUKA HQ
Judge
1-Junior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class
Decision Date
08th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed after Full Trial
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jairam Kaswa
Adv. NARENDRA CHEJARA
Respondent(s)
Executive officer Advocate - OMPRAKASH BHAKAR
NAGAR PALIKA LAXMANGARH
Adv. OMPRAKASH BHAKAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Junior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 02-04-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 24-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 24-02-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court (Civil Judge, Lakshmangarh, Sikar) granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff against the Municipal Corporation, restraining it from demolishing the plaintiff's construction on his leasehold property. The court found that the plaintiff had submitted a construction application as per the approved map and complied with all formalities; the municipality's failure to issue construction permission within two months was its liability, not the plaintiff's. The court directed the municipality to accept the plaintiff's regularization application within one month and not demolish the construction if the plaintiff pays the prescribed fees as per the court's directions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court (Civil Judge, Lakshmangarh, Sikar) granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff against the Municipal Corporation, restraining it from demolishing the plaintiff's construction on his leasehold property. The court found that the plaintiff had submitted a construction application as per the approved map and complied with all formalities; the municipality's failure to issue construction permission within two months was its liability, not the plaintiff's. The court directed the municipality to accept the plaintiff's regularization application within one month and not demolish the construction if the plaintiff pays the prescribed fees as per the court's directions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts