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
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
e-Filing Number
10-07-2024
Filing Number
205/2024
Filing Date
16-07-2024
Registration No
205/2024
Registration Date
16-07-2024
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI
Judge
251-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Hidayat Ulla S/o Late Muneerulla
Adv. T.B. Ramanna Belliganudu
Rehaman Khan S/o Late Sharif Khan
Adv. T.B. Ramanna Belliganudu
Respondent(s)
Allabhakshi Khan S/o Karim Khan
Mahaboob Khan S/o Karim Khan
Hearing History
Judge: 251-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI
OBJECTIONS
OBJECTIONS
OBJECTIONS
OBJECTIONS
OBJECTIONS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-06-2026 | OBJECTIONS |
| 10-04-2026 | OBJECTIONS |
| 13-03-2026 | OBJECTIONS |
| 11-03-2026 | OBJECTIONS |
| 18-02-2026 | OBJECTIONS |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts