Ramachandra S/o Honnayya Naik vs Ms Biogen Wellness Private Limited — 25/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7rule1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 10-Jun-2026 this date has passed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAUK720002452025

Filing Number

24/2025

Filing Date

25-Sep-2025

Registration No

25/2025

Registration Date

25-Sep-2025

Court

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUMTA

Judge

904-Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 7rule1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ramachandra S/o Honnayya Naik

    Adv. Annapoorna S S

  2. 2.Shrikanth S/o Venkappa Naik

  3. 3.Smt Parvati W/o Shrikanth Naik

  4. 4.N S Pavitta Shrikant Naik Rep by Shrikanth S/o Venkappa Naik

  5. 5.Shravya D/o Shrikant Naik Rep by Shrikant S/o Venkappa Naik

  6. 6.Dayanand S/o Venkappa Naik

  7. 7.Nagesh S/o Venkata Naik

  8. 8.Smt Kalpana W/o Nagesh Naik

  9. 9.Diganth S/o Nagesh Naik Rep by Nagesh S/o Venkata Naik

  10. 10.Samith S/o Nagesh Naik Rep by Nagesh S/o Venkata Naik

  11. 11.Manjunath S/o Parameshwar Naik

  12. 12.Smt Parvathi W/o Parameshwar Naik

  13. 13.Laxminarayan S/o Maruthi Kumtakar

  14. 14.Smt Savita W/o Laxminarayan Kumtakar

  15. 15.Vinayak S/o Devaray Bhandari

  16. 16.Smt Anita W/o Vinayak Bhandari

  17. 17.Nagashri S/o Vinayak Bhandari Rep by Vinayak S/o Devaray Bhandari

  18. 18.Smt Shanti W/o Devaray Bhandari

  19. 19.Vithoba S/o Budhgayya Angadikeri

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ms Biogen Wellness Private Limited

  2. 2.Mangaldas Shetty @ N R Shetty

  3. 3.Soopta Mangaladas Shetty

  4. 4.K Surajeeth Shetty

  5. 5.Smt Rashmi W/o Surajeeth Shetty

  6. 6.Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

  7. 7.Chief Secretaries Government of Karnataka Vidhanasouda Bengaluru

  8. 8.Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Biology Bangalore

  9. 9.Undersecretaries Revenue Department Government of Karnataka Vidhana Souda Bangalore

  10. 10.Undersecretaries Forest Department Government of Karnataka Bangalore

  11. 11.Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Department of Forest, Environment and Biology Bangalore

  12. 12.Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Forest Chief Forest Office Bangalore

  13. 13.Undersecretaries Panchayat Rajya Department Government of Karnataka Bangalore

  14. 14.Deputy Commissioner Uttara Kannada District

  15. 15.Regional Director Environment Office Department of Forestry, Environment and Biology Karwar

  16. 16.Assistant Commissioner Kumta

  17. 17.Tahashildar Kumta

  18. 18.Conservator of Forest Canara Circle, Sirsi

  19. 19.Deputy Conservator of Forests Honnavar

  20. 20.Assistant Conservator of Forests Kumta

  21. 21.Range Officer Forest Department Kumta

  22. 22.Forest Officers Kumta

  23. 23.Deputy Director, Department of Tourism Uttar Kannda Karwar

  24. 24.Port Deputy Conservators Port Department Uttar Kannda

  25. 25.Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayath Uttar Kannda

  26. 26.Executive Officers Taluka Panchayath Kumta

  27. 27.PDO Gram Panchayath Kagal

Case History

  1. 10-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  3. 25-Apr-2026

    Issues

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Issues

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  5. 04-Apr-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: O.S. No. 25/2025 Court: Senior Civil Judge & Prl. JMFC, Kumta, Uttara Kannada Date: 4 April 2026 Outcome: Interim Injunction Application (I.A. No. V) DISMISSED. The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction to remove an iron gate placed by defendants 1-5 at survey number 135, blocking a public road villagers claim to have used since time immemorial for access to the seashore, temples, and graveyards. The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and that balance of convenience did not favor them. Key issues—whether the road is public, whether plaintiffs have ancestral usage rights, and whether alternative routes exist—remain matters for trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 04-Apr-2026

    Issues

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  7. 25-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  9. 09-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

  10. 09-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  11. 07-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  12. 05-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  13. 26-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  14. 19-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  15. 12-Feb-2026

    Reply

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  16. 09-Feb-2026

    Reply

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  17. 02-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  18. 29-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  19. 13-Jan-2026

    Issues

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  20. 06-Jan-2026

    Issues

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  21. 16-Dec-2025

    Issues

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  22. 02-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  23. 18-Nov-2025

    Written Statement

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  24. 30-Oct-2025

    Summons

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  25. 17-Oct-2025

    Written Statement

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Kumta

  26. 25-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 25-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 25/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S. No. 25/2025 Court: Senior Civil Judge & Prl. JMFC, Kumta, Uttara Kannada Date: 4 April 2026 Outcome: Interim Injunction Application (I.A. No. V) DISMISSED. The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction to remove an iron gate placed by defendants 1-5 at survey number 135, blocking a public road villagers claim to have used since time immemorial for access to the seashore, temples, and graveyards. The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and that balance of convenience did not favor them. Key issues—whether the road is public, whether plaintiffs have ancestral usage rights, and whether alternative routes exist—remain matters for trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case