Smt. Leelavathamma. vs Kumar @ Aruna. — 42/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/ORDER,VII,RULE,1. Status: Awaiting records. Next hearing: 25th April 2026.

Awaiting records Next hearing 25-Apr-2026 this date has passed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KACM400007512024

Filing Number

42/2024

Filing Date

18-Apr-2024

Registration No

42/2024

Registration Date

18-Apr-2024

Court

CIVIL JUDE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE

Judge

222-Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

Last updated 07-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/ORDER,VII,RULE,1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Smt. Leelavathamma.

    Adv. K.T. MAHESH.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Kumar @ Aruna.

  2. 2.K.M. Ramegowda.

  3. 3.K.N. Mahesh.

  4. 4.Paramesha @ Chandregowda.

  5. 5.Jagadish. K.M.

  6. 6.Nikil.

Case History

  1. 25-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    Awaiting records

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  3. 24-Jan-2026

    Awaiting records

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  4. 06-Dec-2025

    Awaiting records

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  5. 31-Oct-2025

    Awaiting records

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  6. 27-Sep-2025

    Awaiting records

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  7. 22-Aug-2025

    Awaiting records

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  8. 19-Jul-2025

    Awaiting records

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  9. 06-Jun-2025

    Awaiting records

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  10. 27-Mar-2025

    Awaiting records

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  11. 03-Mar-2025

    Issues

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  12. 06-Feb-2025

    OrdersView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY Outcome: Application for temporary injunction rejected. The Principal Civil Judge of Mudigere rejected the plaintiff Leelavathamma's application (I.A. No. I) for temporary injunction seeking to restrain defendants from encroaching upon her property to construct an embankment. The court found no prima-facie case as the embankment in question already exists on government land and has been in existence for 200 years; defendants are using it for irrigation purposes, not newly encroaching. Issues to be framed by 03.03.2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  13. 06-Feb-2025

    Issues

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  14. 30-Jan-2025

    Orders

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  15. 09-Jan-2025

    Orders

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  16. 12-Dec-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  17. 11-Dec-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  18. 27-Nov-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  19. 08-Nov-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  20. 25-Oct-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  21. 01-Oct-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  22. 24-Sep-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  23. 09-Sep-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  24. 20-Aug-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  25. 13-Aug-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  26. 22-Jul-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  27. 28-Jun-2024

    Summons

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  28. 03-Jun-2024

    Summons

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  29. 19-Apr-2024

    OrdersView PDF

  30. 19-Apr-2024

    Summons

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Mudigere

  31. 18-Apr-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 18-Apr-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 42/2024

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY Outcome: Application for temporary injunction rejected. The Principal Civil Judge of Mudigere rejected the plaintiff Leelavathamma's application (I.A. No. I) for temporary injunction seeking to restrain defendants from encroaching upon her property to construct an embankment. The court found no prima-facie case as the embankment in question already exists on government land and has been in existence for 200 years; defendants are using it for irrigation purposes, not newly encroaching. Issues to be framed by 03.03.2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case