MANGALAMMA vs SUSHEELAMMA — 135/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O,7,RULE,1,AND,2,OF,CPC. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 10th September 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS710010962025
Filing Number
135/2025
Filing Date
22-Apr-2025
Registration No
135/2025
Registration Date
22-Apr-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIRUMAKUDAL NARSIPURA
Judge
451-Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Tirumakudal Narsipur
Last updated 15-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MANGALAMMA
Adv. SRI. G.RAVISHANKAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.SUSHEELAMMA
-
2.POORNIMA
Case History
-
10-Sep-2026
Next hearingPending
-
10-Jul-2026
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Tirumakudal Narsipur
-
02-Apr-2026
Plantiff Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Tirumakudal Narsipur
-
03-Jan-2026
Plantiff Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Tirumakudal Narsipur
-
25-Nov-2025
Written Stat/Objection
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Tirumakudal Narsipur
-
04-Sep-2025
Written Stat/Objection
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Tirumakudal Narsipur
-
02-Jun-2025
Written Stat/Objection
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Tirumakudal Narsipur
-
23-Apr-2025
Orders
Case Summary - O.S.No.135/2025 Petitioner Mangalamma's suit seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against Susheelamma and Poornima regarding a property was heard. The petitioner's interim application for ex-parte temporary injunction to restrain construction on the property was rejected as the court deemed it necessary to hear the defendants before deciding on merits. The court issued an emergent notice and suit summons to defendants (subject to court fees payment) and adjourned the matter pending their response. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Apr-2025
Issue Emergent Notice
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Tirumakudal Narsipur
-
22-Apr-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Apr-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 135/2025
Case Summary - O.S.No.135/2025 Petitioner Mangalamma's suit seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against Susheelamma and Poornima regarding a property was heard. The petitioner's interim application for ex-parte temporary injunction to restrain construction on the property was rejected as the court deemed it necessary to hear the defendants before deciding on merits. The court issued an emergent notice and suit summons to defendants (subject to court fees payment) and adjourned the matter pending their response. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts