RAVIKUMAR G S vs GOVINDARAJ — 450/2025

Case under Order 7 Rule 1 R/w Sec 26 of Cpc. Status: Plaintiff Evidence. Next hearing: 21st July 2026.

Plaintiff Evidence Next hearing 21-Jul-2026

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KABR500101602025

Filing Number

452/2025

Filing Date

05-Dec-2025

Registration No

450/2025

Registration Date

05-Dec-2025

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSKOTE

Judge

101-Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Order 7 Rule 1 R/w Sec 26 of Cpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAVIKUMAR G S

    Adv. M Ananda

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GOVINDARAJ

Case History

  1. 21-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 09-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 06-Dec-2025

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: OS.450/2025 (RAVIKUMAR G S v. GOVINDARAJ) The court rejected petitioner's application for ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with possession of a property in Bangalore Rural District. The court found inconsistencies in the petitioner's claims and supporting documents regarding the property's nature (photographs showed it as vacant while E-Khata records showed it as a building) and noted the absence of the claimed Hakkupatra document. The court issued emergent notice and suit summons to the defendant, ordering the case to be called for further hearing before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosakote. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 06-Dec-2025

    Summons to defendents

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 05-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 05-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 450/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS.450/2025 (RAVIKUMAR G S v. GOVINDARAJ) The court rejected petitioner's application for ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with possession of a property in Bangalore Rural District. The court found inconsistencies in the petitioner's claims and supporting documents regarding the property's nature (photographs showed it as vacant while E-Khata records showed it as a building) and noted the absence of the claimed Hakkupatra document. The court issued emergent notice and suit summons to the defendant, ordering the case to be called for further hearing before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosakote. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case