Hidayat Ulla S/o Late Muneerulla vs Allabhakshi Khan S/o Karim Khan — 205/2024
Case under Sec802 Cpc Section 7rule1. Status: Objections. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
O.S. - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KADG220028752024
e-Filing Number
10-07-2024
Filing Number
205/2024
Filing Date
16-Jul-2024
Registration No
205/2024
Registration Date
16-Jul-2024
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI
Judge
251-Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Hidayat Ulla S/o Late Muneerulla
Adv. T.B. Ramanna Belliganudu
-
2.Rehaman Khan S/o Late Sharif Khan
Adv. T.B. Ramanna Belliganudu
Respondent(s)
-
1.Allabhakshi Khan S/o Karim Khan
-
2.Mahaboob Khan S/o Karim Khan
Case History
-
04-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
01-Jun-2026
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
10-Apr-2026
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
13-Mar-2026
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
11-Mar-2026
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
18-Feb-2026
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
19-Jan-2026
Hearing
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
16-Dec-2025
Hearing
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
03-Dec-2025
Hearing
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
19-Nov-2025
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
05-Nov-2025
Hearing
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
18-Oct-2025
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
27-Sep-2025
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
16-Sep-2025
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
20-Aug-2025
Hearing
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
28-Jul-2025
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
05-Jul-2025
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
16-Jun-2025
Hearing
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
02-Jun-2025
Hearing
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
02-Apr-2025
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
10-Mar-2025
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
27-Feb-2025
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
12-Feb-2025
For Compliance U/s 89 of CPC
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
17-Jan-2025
OrdersView PDF
-
17-Jan-2025
OrdersView PDF
Case Summary: O.S.No. 205/2024 The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for ad interim temporary injunction (I.A.No.II) filed under Order 39 Rule 1-2 CPC. The court found that defendants established long-standing possession of the disputed 4-acre property (Sy.No.9999, Sulekere Village) through registered sale deeds dating back to 1970, supported by continuous revenue records. The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and lack standing to challenge defendants' possession, noting their suit violated mandatory procedural requirements under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC regarding representative litigation. Balance of convenience favored defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Jan-2025
For Compliance U/s 89 of CPC
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
07-Jan-2025
Orders CIVIL
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
17-Dec-2024
Hearing
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
07-Dec-2024
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
05-Dec-2024
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
28-Nov-2024
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
05-Nov-2024
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
22-Oct-2024
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
30-Sep-2024
Objections
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
02-Sep-2024
Written Statement
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
14-Aug-2024
Written Statement
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri
-
16-Jul-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Jul-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 205/2024
Case Summary: O.S.No. 205/2024 The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for ad interim temporary injunction (I.A.No.II) filed under Order 39 Rule 1-2 CPC. The court found that defendants established long-standing possession of the disputed 4-acre property (Sy.No.9999, Sulekere Village) through registered sale deeds dating back to 1970, supported by continuous revenue records. The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and lack standing to challenge defendants' possession, noting their suit violated mandatory procedural requirements under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC regarding representative litigation. Balance of convenience favored defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts