Veena Hanumant Naik, Age 50 Years, R/o Janata Plot No. 71, Melin Mudkani, Tq-Honnavar vs Anusuya Dharma Naik, Age 71 Years, R/o Tumbolli, Tq-Honnavar — 5/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U.O XLIII, Rule 1(r), r/w , Sec.104. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th March 2026.

M.A. - MISCELLANUOUS APPEALS

CNR: KAUK610003152025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

5/2025

Filing Date

28-07-2025

Registration No

5/2025

Registration Date

28-07-2025

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONAVAR

Judge

526-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC HONAVARA

Decision Date

07th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section U.O XLIII, Rule 1(r), r/w , Sec.104

Petitioner(s)

Veena Hanumant Naik, Age 50 Years, R/o Janata Plot No. 71, Melin Mudkani, Tq-Honnavar

Adv. Shridhar Govind Hegde

Hanumant Shambhu Naik, Age 52 Years, R/o Janata Plot No.71, Melina Mudkani, Tq-Honnavar

Respondent(s)

Anusuya Dharma Naik, Age 71 Years, R/o Tumbolli, Tq-Honnavar

Hearing History

Judge: 526-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC HONAVARA

07-03-2026

Disposed

19-02-2026

ORDER

16-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

11-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

09-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

07-03-2026
Judgment

The Senior Civil Judge dismissed the defendants' appeal challenging the trial court's grant of temporary injunction to the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff has a prima facie case and balance of convenience favors her, as a government-granted site (Plot No.9) was allocated to her husband and she possesses a repair license from the Panchayat, while the defendants failed to produce any evidence of ownership transfer. The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's repair work. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Senior Civil Judge dismissed the defendants' appeal challenging the trial court's grant of temporary injunction to the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff has a prima facie case and balance of convenience favors her, as a government-granted site (Plot No.9) was allocated to her husband and she possesses a repair license from the Panchayat, while the defendants failed to produce any evidence of ownership transfer. The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's repair work. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONAVAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case