Sangappa Parappa Hunnur vs Giramallappa Nagappa Gundi Advocate - R. N.DEVARAVAR — 192/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section CPC. Status: CROSS OF PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. Next hearing: 25th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KABK710036992021
Next Hearing
25th March 2026
Filing Number
191/2021
Filing Date
27-11-2021
Registration No
192/2021
Registration Date
27-11-2021
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI
Judge
871-ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMKHANDI.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sangappa Parappa Hunnur
Adv. G. I. ZALAKI
Suneeta Sangappa Hunnur
Adv. G. I. ZALAKI
Respondent(s)
Giramallappa Nagappa Gundi Advocate - R. N.DEVARAVAR
Hearing History
Judge: 871-ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMKHANDI.
CROSS OF PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
CROSS OF PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | CROSS OF PETITIONER/RESPONDENT |
| 06-03-2026 | CROSS OF PETITIONER/RESPONDENT |
| 27-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 17-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 10-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case: O.S. No. 192/2021 | Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Jamkhandi | Dated: 21 September 2023 Outcome: The court rejected the temporary injunction application (I.A. No. III) filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendant from cutting trees (Neem and Tamarind) on disputed encroached land, but the judge found they failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss. The court held that determining whether encroachment occurred requires a full trial and cannot be decided at the interim stage. No costs were imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: O.S. No. 192/2021 | Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Jamkhandi | Dated: 21 September 2023 Outcome: The court rejected the temporary injunction application (I.A. No. III) filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendant from cutting trees (Neem and Tamarind) on disputed encroached land, but the judge found they failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss. The court held that determining whether encroachment occurred requires a full trial and cannot be decided at the interim stage. No costs were imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts