chaman dixit vs nagar palika kalpi Advocate - sri Amar singh nishad ad. — 105/2004

Case under Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act Section OriginalSuit-16. Status: Objection/Disposal. Next hearing: 28th April 2026 Date Not Updated.

Objection/Disposal Next hearing 28-Apr-2026 this date has passed

Original Suit

CNR: UPJL240000402004

Filing Number

105/2004

Filing Date

27-Sep-2004

Registration No

105/2004

Registration Date

27-Sep-2004

Court

Outlying court kalpi

Judge

1-Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

Last updated 17-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act Section OriginalSuit-16

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.chaman dixit

    Adv. sri m.ayub ad.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.nagar palika kalpi Advocate - sri Amar singh nishad ad.

Case History

  1. 28-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Objection/Disposal

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  3. 04-Feb-2026

    Objection/Disposal

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  4. 07-Oct-2025

    Objection/Disposal

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  5. 14-Jul-2025

    Objection/Disposal

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  6. 27-Mar-2025

    Objection/Disposal

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  7. 01-Jan-2025

    Objection/Disposal

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  8. 10-Oct-2024

    Objection/Disposal

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  9. 17-May-2024

    Objection/Disposal

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  10. 28-Feb-2024

    Objection/Disposal

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  11. 21-Sep-2023

    Objection/Disposal

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  12. 22-Jul-2023

    Objection/Disposal

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  13. 28-May-2023

    Objection/Disposal

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  14. 02-May-2023

    Objection/Disposal

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  15. 28-Apr-2023

    Restored

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  16. 02-Nov-2018

    Copy of JudgementView PDF

    Summary The civil court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking a declaration that he is the priest and manager of Bihari Ji Maharaj temple in Junaidpur, Indranagar, Jalaun, and that the disputed property (house numbers 12/13) belongs to the temple. The court found that the plaintiff lacked standing to file the suit as he was not the actual manager/priest, and that the case was barred under Section 164 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act 1916 (restricting civil courts' jurisdiction over municipal tax assessment matters) and CPC Rule 11 Order 7. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed on grounds of lack of authority, jurisdiction, and procedural defects. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  17. 02-Nov-2018

    Disposed

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  18. 29-Oct-2018

    Judgement

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  19. 24-Oct-2018

    Arguments

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  20. 16-Oct-2018

    Arguments

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  21. 08-Oct-2018

    Arguments

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  22. 01-Oct-2018

    Arguments

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  23. 29-May-2018

    Evidence

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  24. 28-Mar-2018

    Evidence

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  25. 28-Jul-2016

    Evidence

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  26. 20-Apr-2016

    Evidence

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  27. 19-Apr-2016

    Evidence

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  28. 19-Feb-2016

    Evidence

    Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

  29. 04-Jan-2016

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 27-Sep-2004

    Case filed

    Registration No. 105/2004

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The civil court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking a declaration that he is the priest and manager of Bihari Ji Maharaj temple in Junaidpur, Indranagar, Jalaun, and that the disputed property (house numbers 12/13) belongs to the temple. The court found that the plaintiff lacked standing to file the suit as he was not the actual manager/priest, and that the case was barred under Section 164 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act 1916 (restricting civil courts' jurisdiction over municipal tax assessment matters) and CPC Rule 11 Order 7. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed on grounds of lack of authority, jurisdiction, and procedural defects. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case