B.N. MANJUNATH vs THE CHIEF SECRETARY — 326/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDERVII,RULE1,R/W/S26. Status: ORDERS. Next hearing: 23rd April 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAMS310014942024

ORDERS

Next Hearing

23rd April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

324/2024

Filing Date

22-07-2024

Registration No

326/2024

Registration Date

26-07-2024

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUNSUR

Judge

447-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNSUR

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section ORDERVII,RULE1,R/W/S26

Petitioner(s)

B.N. MANJUNATH

Adv. B.S.YOGANANDA KUMAR

MADAPPA

GANGADARA

MAHADEVU.G.S.

PREMKUMAR

SUSEELAMMA

Respondent(s)

THE CHIEF SECRETARY

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,

Hearing History

Judge: 447-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNSUR

07-03-2026

ORDERS

27-01-2026

HEARING

22-11-2025

HEARING

29-10-2025

HEARING

27-09-2025

HEARING

Interim Orders

07-01-2025
Orders

Summary: The Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Hunsur dismissed the temporary injunction application (IA No.II) filed by six plaintiffs seeking relief from eviction by government authorities regarding commercial shop properties. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they did not provide proper documentation regarding tenancy, rent payment receipts for 2023, or business authorization, while the defendants had legitimately issued a notice due to outstanding rent arrears. The court concluded that neither balance of convenience nor irreparable hardship favored the plaintiffs' position. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Hunsur dismissed the temporary injunction application (IA No.II) filed by six plaintiffs seeking relief from eviction by government authorities regarding commercial shop properties. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they did not provide proper documentation regarding tenancy, rent payment receipts for 2023, or business authorization, while the defendants had legitimately issued a notice due to outstanding rent arrears. The court concluded that neither balance of convenience nor irreparable hardship favored the plaintiffs' position. 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 COURT, HUNSUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case