Sridhar Reddy S/o Madhusudhanreddy Mali Patil vs Srikanthreddy S/o madhusudhanreddy Mali Patil — 51/2025
Case under 7 Rule 1 and 2 Cpc Section 7. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAKB720026232025
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
e-Filing Number
28-07-2025
Filing Number
51/2025
Filing Date
29-07-2025
Registration No
51/2025
Registration Date
29-07-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SEDAM
Judge
329-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. JMFC,Sedam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sridhar Reddy S/o Madhusudhanreddy Mali Patil
Adv. Gopal Rathod
Respondent(s)
Srikanthreddy S/o madhusudhanreddy Mali Patil
Soubhagyalaxmi W/o Madhusudhanreddy Mali Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 329-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. JMFC,Sedam
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 13-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 10-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 09-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 27-01-2026 | HEARING |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. No. 51/2025 Outcome: Temporary injunction granted in favor of plaintiff. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for ad-interim temporary injunction, restraining the defendants and anyone claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of land Sy. No.376/2 (measuring 01 acre 02 guntas) in Mudhol village until final disposal of the suit. The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case based on a 2015 compromise decree and valid revenue records showing him as the registered owner, and determined that balance of convenience and risk of irreparable loss favored granting the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. No. 51/2025 Outcome: Temporary injunction granted in favor of plaintiff. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for ad-interim temporary injunction, restraining the defendants and anyone claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of land Sy. No.376/2 (measuring 01 acre 02 guntas) in Mudhol village until final disposal of the suit. The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case based on a 2015 compromise decree and valid revenue records showing him as the registered owner, and determined that balance of convenience and risk of irreparable loss favored granting the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts