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

EVIDENCE

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section O.7R.1

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

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE

16-02-2026

EVIDENCE

24-01-2026

ISSUES

19-01-2026

ISSUES

08-01-2026

ISSUES

Interim Orders

16-10-2025
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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HALIYAL All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case