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
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
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
Objection/Disposal
Objection/Disposal
Objection/Disposal
Objection/Disposal
Objection/Disposal
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts