Indrapal vs Ram Bahori Advocate - Nanku Ram — 17/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 04th April 2026.

Case disposed

Misc. Civil Appeal

CNR: UPCH010020342024

Filing Number

64/2024

Filing Date

31-Jul-2024

Registration No

17/2024

Registration Date

13-Aug-2024

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

04-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Indrapal

    Adv. Awadhesh Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ram Bahori Advocate - Nanku Ram

  2. 2.Matganjan

  3. 3.Ramsharan

    Adv. Nanku Ram

  4. 4.Jagatpal

    Adv. Nanku Ram

  5. 5.Sadashiv

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: Civil Appeal 17/2024 - Indrapal vs. Rambahori & Others The appellate court allowed Indrapal's appeal against a one-sided dismissal of his suit by the trial court. Indrapal had sought a permanent injunction to prevent respondents from unlawfully encroaching on his disputed land (Plot 810, measuring 0.680 hectares). The trial court dismissed the case without considering that required co-owners were not made parties and that Indrapal presented sufficient evidence of ownership and possession. The appellate court found the trial court committed legal error and remanded the matter for proper adjudication on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 03-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    District and Sessions Judge

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  6. 24-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  7. 23-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  8. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District and Sessions Judge

  9. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  10. 21-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  11. 28-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  12. 19-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  13. 27-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  14. 07-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  15. 13-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  16. 18-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  17. 01-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  18. 18-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  19. 31-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  20. 11-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  21. 23-May-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  22. 03-May-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  23. 11-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  24. 20-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  25. 24-Feb-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  26. 30-Jan-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  27. 09-Jan-2025

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  28. 16-Dec-2024

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  29. 28-Nov-2024

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  30. 13-Nov-2024

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  31. 24-Oct-2024

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  32. 08-Oct-2024

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  33. 19-Sep-2024

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  34. 04-Sep-2024

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  35. 13-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 31-Jul-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 17/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Civil Appeal 17/2024 - Indrapal vs. Rambahori & Others The appellate court allowed Indrapal's appeal against a one-sided dismissal of his suit by the trial court. Indrapal had sought a permanent injunction to prevent respondents from unlawfully encroaching on his disputed land (Plot 810, measuring 0.680 hectares). The trial court dismissed the case without considering that required co-owners were not made parties and that Indrapal presented sufficient evidence of ownership and possession. The appellate court found the trial court committed legal error and remanded the matter for proper adjudication on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case