MOHAN RAO KADAM vs PUSHPA JAJU — 27/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O43R1. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 16th April 2026.

Civil Misc. Appeal - CIVIL MISC APPEAL

CNR: RJAJ010009692026

Case disposed

Filing Number

272/2026

Filing Date

12-03-2026

Registration No

27/2026

Registration Date

13-03-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Ajmer District HQ

Judge

4-Addl District and Sessions Judge III

Decision Date

16th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O43R1

Petitioner(s)

MOHAN RAO KADAM

Adv. Ashok Kumar Mathur

CHHAYA DEVI

Respondent(s)

PUSHPA JAJU

PRATEEK JAJU

SUNNY JAJU

Hearing History

Judge: 4-Addl District and Sessions Judge III

16-04-2026

Disposed

15-04-2026

Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

08-04-2026

Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

06-04-2026

Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

27-03-2026

Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

Final Orders / Judgements

16-04-2026
Judgement/Order

The appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by Mohan Rao Kadam and Chhaya Devi against the respondents' alleged illegal construction on an adjacent property. The court upheld the trial court's rejection of the temporary injunction petition, finding that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case, had alternative remedies available through municipal authorities, and themselves violated their approved construction plan by adding windows and doors toward the respondents' plot. The court reasoned that the appellants lacked clean hands and must comply with principles of equity before seeking court intervention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by Mohan Rao Kadam and Chhaya Devi against the respondents' alleged illegal construction on an adjacent property. The court upheld the trial court's rejection of the temporary injunction petition, finding that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case, had alternative remedies available through municipal authorities, and themselves violated their approved construction plan by adding windows and doors toward the respondents' plot. The court reasoned that the appellants lacked clean hands and must comply with principles of equity before seeking court intervention. 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

DJ ADJ Ajmer District HQ All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case