Manju Bin Sannu Gond vs Shivaram Nagappa Gond — 10/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section ,7Rule1.2. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
R.A. - Regular Appeals
CNR: KAUK320002152024
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
Filing Number
10/2024
Filing Date
20-03-2024
Registration No
10/2024
Registration Date
20-03-2024
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHATKAL
Judge
1229-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BHATKAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Manju Bin Sannu Gond
Adv. R.R.Shreshty
Respondent(s)
Shivaram Nagappa Gond
Narayana Nagappa Gonda
Ravi Nagappa Gonda
Hearing History
Judge: 1229-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BHATKAL
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 13-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 20-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 30-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 23-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 10/2024 Outcome: The Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. II) for temporary injunction filed by Manju Bin Sannu Gond has been DISMISSED. The Senior Civil Judge found that the appellant failed to establish the three essential elements required for granting temporary injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favor, and irreparable loss if the injunction is refused. The court noted the appellant had not proven possession of the disputed property (bearing Sy.No. 59/2) and lacked definite evidence that respondents were constructing on the suit schedule property rather than on their own adjacent land (Sy.No. 58/3), which is approximately 50 meters away. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 10/2024 Outcome: The Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. II) for temporary injunction filed by Manju Bin Sannu Gond has been DISMISSED. The Senior Civil Judge found that the appellant failed to establish the three essential elements required for granting temporary injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favor, and irreparable loss if the injunction is refused. The court noted the appellant had not proven possession of the disputed property (bearing Sy.No. 59/2) and lacked definite evidence that respondents were constructing on the suit schedule property rather than on their own adjacent land (Sy.No. 58/3), which is approximately 50 meters away. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts