Shivanand S/o BASAVARAJ vs MANJULA W/o Srinivas Madival — 33/2025

Case under 7 Rule 1 and 2 Cpc Section ORDER7RULE1AND2. Status: SUMMONS. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAKB720014852025

SUMMONS

Next Hearing

15th June 2026

e-Filing Number

06-06-2025

Filing Number

33/2025

Filing Date

10-06-2025

Registration No

33/2025

Registration Date

10-06-2025

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SEDAM

Judge

329-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. JMFC,Sedam

Acts & Sections

7 Rule 1 and 2 Cpc Section ORDER7RULE1AND2

Petitioner(s)

Shivanand S/o BASAVARAJ

Adv. Shantkumar B. Hiremath

Respondent(s)

MANJULA W/o Srinivas Madival

Hearing History

Judge: 329-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. JMFC,Sedam

02-05-2026

SUMMONS

02-04-2026

SUMMONS

25-03-2026

ORDERS

24-03-2026

ORDERS

17-03-2026

ORDERS

Interim Orders

14-08-2025
Orders

Case Summary: OS 33/2025 The court granted a temporary injunction restraining defendant Manjula from constructing a building on the plaintiff Shivanand's property. The plaintiff, who purchased his plot in 2009 and constructed his house in 2012-13, left a 1.5-foot space on the northern side for drainage. The defendant began constructing on adjacent plots 17-18 without maintaining the setback, allegedly encroaching onto the plaintiff's property. The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored him, and without the injunction he would suffer irreparable loss. The injunction remains in effect until final trial disposition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS 33/2025 The court granted a temporary injunction restraining defendant Manjula from constructing a building on the plaintiff Shivanand's property. The plaintiff, who purchased his plot in 2009 and constructed his house in 2012-13, left a 1.5-foot space on the northern side for drainage. The defendant began constructing on adjacent plots 17-18 without maintaining the setback, allegedly encroaching onto the plaintiff's property. The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored him, and without the injunction he would suffer irreparable loss. The injunction remains in effect until final trial disposition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SEDAM All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case