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.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KACM400007512024
Next Hearing
25th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
42/2024
Filing Date
18-04-2024
Registration No
42/2024
Registration Date
18-04-2024
Court
CIVIL JUDE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE
Judge
222-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Smt. Leelavathamma.
Adv. K.T. MAHESH.
Respondent(s)
Kumar @ Aruna.
K.M. Ramegowda.
K.N. Mahesh.
Paramesha @ Chandregowda.
Jagadish. K.M.
Nikil.
Hearing History
Judge: 222-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE
Awaiting records
Awaiting records
Awaiting records
Awaiting records
Awaiting records
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Awaiting records | |
| 24-01-2026 | Awaiting records | |
| 06-12-2025 | Awaiting records | |
| 31-10-2025 | Awaiting records | |
| 27-09-2025 | Awaiting records |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts