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.

Case disposed

M.A. - MISCELLANUOUS APPEALS

CNR: KAUK610003152025

Filing Number

5/2025

Filing Date

28-Jul-2025

Registration No

5/2025

Registration Date

28-Jul-2025

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONAVAR

Judge

526-Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 10-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U.O XLIII, Rule 1(r), r/w , Sec.104

Petitioner(s)

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

    Adv. Shridhar Govind Hegde

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

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    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.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  4. 19-Feb-2026

    Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  7. 09-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  8. 02-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  9. 28-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  10. 19-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  11. 07-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  12. 15-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  13. 17-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  14. 10-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  15. 27-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  16. 08-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  17. 24-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  18. 22-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  19. 15-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  20. 08-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  21. 30-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  22. 21-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  23. 04-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  24. 29-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 28-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 5/2025

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case