SRI OMPRAKASH JAISWAL vs SRI AUDHESH PRASAD JAISWAL AND ANOTHER — 5/2025

Case under Advocates Act Section 123. Status: Hearing of Petition. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.

Hearing of Petition Next hearing 20-Apr-2026 this date has passed

Title Suit

CNR: WBSP070033472025

Filing Number

3231/2025

Filing Date

09-Dec-2025

Registration No

5/2025

Registration Date

09-Dec-2025

Court

Additional District Judge, Sealdeh, South 24 Parganas

Judge

7-Scc

Last updated 20-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Advocates Act Section 123

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SRI OMPRAKASH JAISWAL

    Adv. RANJIT KUMAR DE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SRI AUDHESH PRASAD JAISWAL AND ANOTHER

Case History

  1. 20-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing of Petition

    Scc

  3. 28-Jan-2026

    Hearing of Petition

    Scc

  4. 13-Jan-2026

    orderView PDF

    Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's petition under Order 18 Rule 16 CPC filed on 13/06/2025, which sought to call witness Raj Bali Shaw to testify immediately regarding a disputed family settlement agreement (Panchnama). The court held that the plaintiff was attempting to bypass standard evidentiary procedure by calling the attesting witness before the document itself was formally proved by the legal custodian, and that the witness's age and infirmity did not justify departing from established rules of evidence. The ad interim injunction was extended till the next date, with the injunction application hearing fixed for 28/01/2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 13-Jan-2026

    Hearing of Petition

    Scc

  6. 06-Jan-2026

    Order

    Scc

  7. 12-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 09-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 5/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's petition under Order 18 Rule 16 CPC filed on 13/06/2025, which sought to call witness Raj Bali Shaw to testify immediately regarding a disputed family settlement agreement (Panchnama). The court held that the plaintiff was attempting to bypass standard evidentiary procedure by calling the attesting witness before the document itself was formally proved by the legal custodian, and that the witness's age and infirmity did not justify departing from established rules of evidence. The ad interim injunction was extended till the next date, with the injunction application hearing fixed for 28/01/2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case