Lalu S/o. Shankar Lamani, 52years, Agriculture, vs Chandrashekar S/o. Rudrappa Mathad, 65year, Agriculture, — 42/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O.7R.1. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 23rd April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK510004662025
Next Hearing
23rd April 2026
Filing Number
40/2025
Filing Date
26-03-2025
Registration No
42/2025
Registration Date
26-03-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HALIYAL
Judge
525-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HALIYAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lalu S/o. Shankar Lamani, 52years, Agriculture,
Adv. A C Chakalabbi
Respondent(s)
Chandrashekar S/o. Rudrappa Mathad, 65year, Agriculture,
Hearing History
Judge: 525-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HALIYAL
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 16-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 24-01-2026 | ISSUES |
| 19-01-2026 | ISSUES |
| 08-01-2026 | ISSUES |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the disputed agricultural land (R.S. No.141/Block No.141, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas) until the suit is disposed. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case with balance of convenience and irreparable injury favoring him, as he was in actual possession of the land despite it being granted to the defendant in 1979, and noted that a full trial was necessary to clarify the property dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the disputed agricultural land (R.S. No.141/Block No.141, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas) until the suit is disposed. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case with balance of convenience and irreparable injury favoring him, as he was in actual possession of the land despite it being granted to the defendant in 1979, and noted that a full trial was necessary to clarify the property dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts