RAMNATH vs BHAGWANI — WP227/657/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 18th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010226452026

Filing Number

WP227/12937/2026

Filing Date

12-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP227/657/2026

Registration Date

15-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL MATTERS ( 17 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES.. ( 1750 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

18-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMNATH

    Adv. AKASH AGRAWAL,Amrita Sharma,Amrita Sharma, ,SAHIL SAHU,ANSHIT SINGH HORA,RAKESH KUMAR MANIKPURI,Ravindra Sharma,Amrita Sharma

  2. 2.Keshoram

  3. 3.Lakhan

  4. 4.Sukhbati

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHAGWANI

  2. 2.Sudhu

  3. 3.Smt. Milabai

  4. 4.Ghanshyam

  5. 5.Akhilesh

  6. 6.Mithlesh

  7. 7.Kalesari

  8. 8.Santoshi

  9. 9.Saraswati

  10. 10.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

    Adv. A.G.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF

    The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the writ petition challenging a temporary injunction granted by the trial court in a civil suit over jointly-held agricultural land. The court found that the trial court had properly considered the possession of both parties and the prejudice that would result without the injunction, and that the appellate court correctly affirmed this order. Applying the strict limits of Article 227 jurisdiction, the court declined to interfere but directed the trial court to conclude the case within one year. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Jun-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

  4. 12-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP227/657/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the writ petition challenging a temporary injunction granted by the trial court in a civil suit over jointly-held agricultural land. The court found that the trial court had properly considered the possession of both parties and the prejudice that would result without the injunction, and that the appellate court correctly affirmed this order. Applying the strict limits of Article 227 jurisdiction, the court declined to interfere but directed the trial court to conclude the case within one year. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case