BEEREGOWDA vs NINGAMMA — 20/2022
Case under Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc Section ORDER 7. Status: ORDERS. Next hearing: 23rd April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS510000772022
Next Hearing
23rd April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
10/2022
Filing Date
06-01-2022
Registration No
20/2022
Registration Date
10-01-2022
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD
Judge
450-I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NANJANGUD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BEEREGOWDA
Adv. SHANKAR. H.P.
Respondent(s)
NINGAMMA
H.C. NAGARAJU
H.C. SHIVALINGEGOWDA
H.C. SHIVAMURTHY
H.C. MAHADEVAGOWDA
H.C. JAYAMMA
H.C. PAPANNA
H.C. SUSHEELAMMA
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Hearing History
Judge: 450-I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NANJANGUD
ORDERS
ORDERS
HEARING ON IA
HEARING ON IA
HEARING ON IA
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 07-03-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 05-02-2026 | HEARING ON IA | |
| 06-12-2025 | HEARING ON IA | |
| 22-11-2025 | HEARING ON IA |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's interim application seeking a temporary injunction to restrain defendant No.7 from constructing on the disputed property. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the defendants demonstrated prior possession of the property with supporting documentation (registered will, construction license, and property tax records), while the plaintiff did not seek mandatory injunction for dispossession. The balance of convenience favored the defendants, who had limited time to complete construction under their license. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's interim application seeking a temporary injunction to restrain defendant No.7 from constructing on the disputed property. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the defendants demonstrated prior possession of the property with supporting documentation (registered will, construction license, and property tax records), while the plaintiff did not seek mandatory injunction for dispossession. The balance of convenience favored the defendants, who had limited time to complete construction under their license. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts