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.

Original Suit

CNR: UPJL240000402004

Objection/Disposal

Next Hearing

28th April 2026 Date Not Updated

Filing Number

105/2004

Filing Date

27-09-2004

Registration No

105/2004

Registration Date

27-09-2004

Court

Outlying court kalpi

Judge

1-Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

Acts & Sections

Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act Section OriginalSuit-16

Petitioner(s)

chaman dixit

Adv. sri m.ayub ad.

Respondent(s)

nagar palika kalpi Advocate - sri Amar singh nishad ad.

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. Kalpi

11-03-2026

Objection/Disposal

04-02-2026

Objection/Disposal

07-10-2025

Objection/Disposal

14-07-2025

Objection/Disposal

27-03-2025

Objection/Disposal

Interim Orders

02-11-2018
Copy of Judgement

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Outlying court kalpi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case