M. Maralusiddappa S/o Late. Mallal Sidramappa vs Basavaraja S/o Kalyanappa — 29/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7,rul,e 1 and, 2 R/,w 151. Status: Issues-C. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.

Issues-C Next hearing 25-Jun-2026 this date has passed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAVN210002432025

Filing Number

29/2025

Filing Date

28-Jan-2025

Registration No

29/2025

Registration Date

28-Jan-2025

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KUDLIGI

Judge

583-CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

Last updated 13-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 7,rul,e 1 and, 2 R/,w 151

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M. Maralusiddappa S/o Late. Mallal Sidramappa

    Adv. D.Karibasavaraja

  2. 2.Smt. Eramma W/o Late. Devendrappa

  3. 3.M. Chandrashekhara S/o Late. Mallal Sidramappa

  4. 4.S. Umakanth S/o Late. Mallal Sidramappa

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Basavaraja S/o Kalyanappa

  2. 2.Siddaramesha S/o Kalyanappa

  3. 3.Gunnalli Prabhu S/o Kalyanappa

  4. 4.K. Veeranna S/o Late. Kaptral Basappa

  5. 5.K. Pampanna S/o Late. Kaptral Basappa

  6. 6.K. Shanmukhappa S/o Late. Kaptral Basappa

  7. 7.K. Halappa S/o Jambanna

  8. 8.Mallikarjuna S/o Pampapathi

  9. 9.Kotresh S/o Vishwanathappa

  10. 10.Siddaremshi S/o Vishwanathappa

Case History

  1. 25-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Issues-C

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  3. 12-Feb-2026

    Issues-C

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  4. 31-Oct-2025

    Issues-C

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  5. 19-Sep-2025

    Issues-C

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  6. 22-Aug-2025

    OrdersView PDF

    Summary: The Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Kudligi rejected the plaintiffs' application for interim temporary injunction (I.A. No.I) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case because the identity of the suit schedule property itself is disputed—specifically regarding boundary demarcation with the adjoining property (Sy.no.589)—and there was insufficient prima facie material demonstrating that defendants were attempting encroachment. Consequently, questions of balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not arise, warranting rejection of the injunction application with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 22-Aug-2025

    First Hearing/Maintainability-C

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  8. 20-Aug-2025

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  9. 11-Aug-2025

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  10. 04-Aug-2025

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  11. 01-Aug-2025

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  12. 19-Jul-2025

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  13. 30-Jun-2025

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  14. 17-Apr-2025

    Issues-C

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  15. 08-Mar-2025

    First Hearing/Maintainability-C

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  16. 14-Feb-2025

    First Hearing/Maintainability-C

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  17. 10-Feb-2025

    Written Statements/Objection To Main Petition-C

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  18. 29-Jan-2025

    First Hearing/Maintainability-C

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  19. 28-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 28-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 29/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Kudligi rejected the plaintiffs' application for interim temporary injunction (I.A. No.I) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case because the identity of the suit schedule property itself is disputed—specifically regarding boundary demarcation with the adjoining property (Sy.no.589)—and there was insufficient prima facie material demonstrating that defendants were attempting encroachment. Consequently, questions of balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not arise, warranting rejection of the injunction application with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case