Parvathi vs M Dastagiri Saheb — 6/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/s26,OVII,R1and2. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 18-Jun-2026 this date has passed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAUP400000132023

Filing Number

6/2023

Filing Date

05-Jan-2023

Registration No

6/2023

Registration Date

05-Jan-2023

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,BAINDURU

Judge

1528-CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Last updated 12-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/s26,OVII,R1and2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Parvathi

    Adv. T. Gurumurthy Rao

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M Dastagiri Saheb

Case History

  1. 18-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  3. 04-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 27-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 15-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 30-Jun-2025

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 27-Mar-2025

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  8. 20-Dec-2024

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 25-Sep-2024

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  10. 10-Jul-2024

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 11-Jun-2024

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 15-Apr-2024

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 02-Feb-2024

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  14. 05-Dec-2023

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 11-Sep-2023

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 05-Jun-2023

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 27-Mar-2023

    OrdersView PDF

    Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application (IA No.II) for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as she was merely an attesting witness to the disputed sale deed dated 24-06-2009 and lacked legal standing to seek cancellation of the document under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Consequently, questions of balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not require consideration, and the case is scheduled for hearing on issues on 05-06-2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  18. 27-Mar-2023

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 23-Mar-2023

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  20. 20-Mar-2023

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 14-Mar-2023

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 10-Mar-2023

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 04-Mar-2023

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 24-Feb-2023

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 06-Feb-2023

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  26. 02-Feb-2023

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  27. 31-Jan-2023

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  28. 24-Jan-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 05-Jan-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 6/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application (IA No.II) for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as she was merely an attesting witness to the disputed sale deed dated 24-06-2009 and lacked legal standing to seek cancellation of the document under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Consequently, questions of balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not require consideration, and the case is scheduled for hearing on issues on 05-06-2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case