Anurag S Shetty vs V Somashekar Reddy — 116/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7rule1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KABR220005982025
Filing Number
111/2025
Filing Date
05-Feb-2025
Registration No
116/2025
Registration Date
05-Feb-2025
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL
Judge
95-Prl. CIVIL Judge
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Anurag S Shetty
Adv. Ganesh Mestha
Respondent(s)
-
1.V Somashekar Reddy
-
2.A V Venkat Swamy Reddy
-
3.Mahadevaiah R
-
4.R Sharadamma
Case History
-
22-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
17-Mar-2026
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge
-
06-Jan-2026
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge
-
15-Sep-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge
-
30-Jun-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge
-
18-Mar-2025
OrdersView PDF
Case Summary: OS.No. 116/2025 Outcome: Temporary injunction GRANTED The court allowed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from carrying out further construction on the plaintiff's property. The judge found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of ownership through a 1997 sale deed and current possession, with three floors substantially completed and only finishing works pending. The court determined that balance of convenience favored the plaintiff and that irreparable monetary loss would result if construction obstruction continued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge
-
07-Mar-2025
Orders
Prl. CIVIL Judge
-
24-Feb-2025
Orders
Prl. CIVIL Judge
-
19-Feb-2025
Arguments
Prl. CIVIL Judge
-
18-Feb-2025
Objections
Prl. CIVIL Judge
-
10-Feb-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Feb-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 116/2025
Case Summary: OS.No. 116/2025 Outcome: Temporary injunction GRANTED The court allowed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from carrying out further construction on the plaintiff's property. The judge found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of ownership through a 1997 sale deed and current possession, with three floors substantially completed and only finishing works pending. The court determined that balance of convenience favored the plaintiff and that irreparable monetary loss would result if construction obstruction continued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts