Halaswamy S/o Prabhayya Alias Prakashayya Chigarimath vs Pushpa W/o Shivanandayya Chigarimath — 160/2023

Case under Order 7 Rule 1 and 3 Cpc Section U,S,26. Status: ORDERS. Next hearing: 13th March 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAHV700012852023

ORDERS

Next Hearing

13th March 2026

Filing Number

174/2023

Filing Date

01-08-2023

Registration No

160/2023

Registration Date

01-08-2023

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SHIGGAON

Judge

362-CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC

Acts & Sections

Order 7 Rule 1 and 3 Cpc Section U,S,26

Petitioner(s)

Halaswamy S/o Prabhayya Alias Prakashayya Chigarimath

Adv. K. C. Patil

Savita W/o Prasanna K.M.

Respondent(s)

Pushpa W/o Shivanandayya Chigarimath

Darshan S/o Shivanandayya Chigarimath

Rekha W/o Somalingayya Chigarimath

Kumari Kavita D/o Somalingayya Chigarimath

Naveen S/o Somalingayya Chigarimath

Hearing History

Judge: 362-CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC

07-03-2026

ORDERS

06-03-2026

ORDERS

05-03-2026

ORDERS

03-03-2026

ORDERS

28-02-2026

ORDERS

Interim Orders

05-08-2025
Orders

CASE SUMMARY The Civil Judge of Shiggaon rejected the plaintiffs' application for interim injunction (IA No.I) seeking to restrain defendants from interfering with their possession of ancestral properties. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not favor them, and no irreparable loss would result from denial of the injunction, particularly given that a High Court order in a related appeal (RSA No.100881/2024) already directed maintenance of status quo on the same properties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY The Civil Judge of Shiggaon rejected the plaintiffs' application for interim injunction (IA No.I) seeking to restrain defendants from interfering with their possession of ancestral properties. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not favor them, and no irreparable loss would result from denial of the injunction, particularly given that a High Court order in a related appeal (RSA No.100881/2024) already directed maintenance of status quo on the same properties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SHIGGAON All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case