Pradeepa S/o Basavaraj Patil vs Megharani D/o Hanamantarao Patil — 30/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7 rule 1 2. Status: ORDERS-. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAKB310000912025
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
e-Filing Number
02-03-2025
Filing Number
30/2025
Filing Date
10-03-2025
Registration No
30/2025
Registration Date
10-03-2025
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AFZALPUR
Judge
974-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and J.M.F.C. ,AFZALPUR.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pradeepa S/o Basavaraj Patil
Adv. Ravindra Babaleshwar
Respondent(s)
Megharani D/o Hanamantarao Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 974-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and J.M.F.C. ,AFZALPUR.
ORDERS-
TO HEAR
TO HEAR
TO HEAR
TO HEAR
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-03-2026 | ORDERS- | |
| 26-03-2026 | TO HEAR | |
| 24-03-2026 | TO HEAR | |
| 23-03-2026 | TO HEAR | |
| 18-03-2026 | TO HEAR |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Interim Application (IA No-2) REJECTED The court rejected the plaintiff's application seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the disputed property (3 acres of land). The judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as he was claiming possession rights under an unregistered agreement dated 05-04-2022 while the defendant held a registered sale deed dated 04-04-2022. The balance of convenience favored the defendant since granting the injunction would cause greater harm to her registered interests than refusing it would cause the plaintiff, who can seek remedies on merit in the main suit for specific performance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Interim Application (IA No-2) REJECTED The court rejected the plaintiff's application seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the disputed property (3 acres of land). The judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as he was claiming possession rights under an unregistered agreement dated 05-04-2022 while the defendant held a registered sale deed dated 04-04-2022. The balance of convenience favored the defendant since granting the injunction would cause greater harm to her registered interests than refusing it would cause the plaintiff, who can seek remedies on merit in the main suit for specific performance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts