KAMIL RAJA KHAN vs KABULI SAH AND OTHERS — 96/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Appearence. Next hearing: 02nd July 2026.
Title Suit
CNR: BREC320001592019
Next Hearing
02nd July 2026
Filing Number
156/2019
Filing Date
22-08-2019
Registration No
96/2019
Registration Date
22-08-2019
Court
Areraj Civil Division
Judge
1-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate -I
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KAMIL RAJA KHAN
Adv. BAMSHANKAR SRIVASTAV
Respondent(s)
KABULI SAH AND OTHERS
AMERIKA SAH
CHANDRIKA SAH
PRABHU SAH
BHUTELI SAH
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate -I
Appearence
Appearence
Appearence
Appearence
Appearence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-05-2026 | Appearence |
| 16-04-2026 | Appearence |
| 12-03-2026 | Appearence |
| 29-01-2026 | Appearence |
| 10-12-2025 | Appearence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No.: Svt. Vad Sankhya 96/19 Court: Subordinate Judge (CIS), Areraj, East Champaran Date: 29.02.2024 Outcome: The temporary injunction petition under CPC Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and Section 151 has been DISMISSED. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish all three essential requirements for granting temporary injunction: (1) no prima facie case, as the plaintiff lacks current possession of the disputed land while the defendant resides in a residential structure on it; (2) balance of convenience does not favor the plaintiff; and (3) no irreparable injury to the plaintiff. The case is directed for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No.: Svt. Vad Sankhya 96/19 Court: Subordinate Judge (CIS), Areraj, East Champaran Date: 29.02.2024 Outcome: The temporary injunction petition under CPC Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and Section 151 has been DISMISSED. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish all three essential requirements for granting temporary injunction: (1) no prima facie case, as the plaintiff lacks current possession of the disputed land while the defendant resides in a residential structure on it; (2) balance of convenience does not favor the plaintiff; and (3) no irreparable injury to the plaintiff. The case is directed for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts