K.R. JAYACHANDRA vs V.R. ANJANEYA REDDY — 407/2022
Case under Order 7 Rule 1. Status: Amended Plaint. Next hearing: 22nd August 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KABR420071742022
Filing Number
407/2022
Filing Date
28-Sep-2022
Registration No
407/2022
Registration Date
28-Sep-2022
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODBALLAPUR
Judge
98-Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.K.R. JAYACHANDRA
Adv. TN
-
2.K.K. VENKATESHA
Respondent(s)
-
1.V.R. ANJANEYA REDDY
Case History
-
22-Aug-2026
Next hearingPending
-
09-Jun-2026
Amended Plaint
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
21-Apr-2026
Amended Plaint
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
17-Mar-2026
Amended Plaint
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
07-Feb-2026
Amended Plaint
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
09-Jan-2026
Amended Plaint
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
18-Nov-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
14-Nov-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
01-Sep-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
03-May-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
27-Jan-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
19-Oct-2024
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
10-Sep-2024
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
08-Jul-2024
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
23-Apr-2024
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
02-Apr-2024
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
19-Feb-2024
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
19-Dec-2023
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
02-Nov-2023
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
31-Aug-2023
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
25-Jul-2023
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
13-Jun-2023
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
09-Jun-2023
Issues.
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
17-Apr-2023
Issues.
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
01-Apr-2023
OrdersView PDF
Case Summary: O.S. No. 407/2022 Outcome: The plaintiff's application for temporary injunction (I.A. No.1) was dismissed on April 1, 2023. The court found that K.R. Jayachandra and K.K. Venkatesha failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction against V.R. Anjaneya Reddy. Key issues included disputed property boundaries, conflicting documentation regarding the survey number locations, and unclear possession claims, as the plaintiffs' own pleadings contradicted whether they or the developer owned the suit property. The court concluded there were too many disputed facts requiring trial and that granting injunction would cause greater hardship to the defendant. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Apr-2023
Issues.
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
20-Mar-2023
Orders.
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
13-Mar-2023
Orders.
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
10-Mar-2023
objections
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
15-Feb-2023
objections
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
08-Feb-2023
Notice
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
04-Feb-2023
Notice
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
09-Jan-2023
Notice
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
08-Jan-2023
Notice
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
24-Nov-2022
Notice
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
27-Oct-2022
Notice
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
30-Sep-2022
Notice
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
29-Sep-2022
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
28-Sep-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Sep-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 407/2022
Case Summary: O.S. No. 407/2022 Outcome: The plaintiff's application for temporary injunction (I.A. No.1) was dismissed on April 1, 2023. The court found that K.R. Jayachandra and K.K. Venkatesha failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction against V.R. Anjaneya Reddy. Key issues included disputed property boundaries, conflicting documentation regarding the survey number locations, and unclear possession claims, as the plaintiffs' own pleadings contradicted whether they or the developer owned the suit property. The court concluded there were too many disputed facts requiring trial and that granting injunction would cause greater hardship to the defendant. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts