MANOHARLAL SAINI vs RAJENDRA KUMAR SAINI — 327/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39.1. Disposed: Contested--Allowed otherwise on 25th April 2026.

Case disposed

Civil Misc. Connected (41) - CIVIL MISC (C)

CNR: RJAL010039812024

Filing Number

886/2024

Filing Date

12-Sep-2024

Registration No

327/2024

Registration Date

20-Sep-2024

Court

DJ ADJ Alwar District HQ

Judge

5-Additional District and Sessions Judge No 03

Decision Date

25-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed otherwise

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 39.1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANOHARLAL SAINI

    Adv. CHANDRA PRAKASH KUMAWAT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJENDRA KUMAR SAINI

  2. 2.GUDDO

  3. 3.SHEELA

  4. 4.SEEMA

  5. 5.SUNITA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: Manoharlal Saini v. Rajendra Kumar Saini (327/2024) Decision: The court granted the petitioner's application under Order 39 Rules 1-2 and Section 151 CPC, accepting that the disputed ancestral property has a prima facie case in the petitioner's favor. The court ordered both parties to maintain the status quo of the property until final judgment—neither party may sell, lease, gift, or make any alterations to the disputed house. Key Reasoning: The court found that the property belonged to the petitioner's ancestors and a lease was validly issued in the respondent's name on 13.06.2022. As the petitioner is the respondent's son with a 1/6 share in ancestral property, he has a prima facie right. The court balanced convenience and irreparable harm, determining that preserving the property's status quo protects both parties' interests pending final resolution of the main dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 03

  4. 02-Apr-2026

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 03

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 03

  6. 19-Feb-2026

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 03

  7. 28-Jan-2026

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 03

  8. 22-Dec-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 03

  9. 01-Dec-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 03

  10. 21-Nov-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 03

  11. 18-Nov-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 03

  12. 23-Sep-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    Additional District and Sessions Judge No 03

  13. 12-Aug-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    District And Sessions Judge

  14. 07-Aug-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    District And Sessions Judge

  15. 14-Jul-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    District And Sessions Judge

  16. 13-May-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    District And Sessions Judge

  17. 21-Jan-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    District And Sessions Judge

  18. 07-Nov-2024

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    District And Sessions Judge

  19. 07-Oct-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 12-Sep-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 327/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Manoharlal Saini v. Rajendra Kumar Saini (327/2024) Decision: The court granted the petitioner's application under Order 39 Rules 1-2 and Section 151 CPC, accepting that the disputed ancestral property has a prima facie case in the petitioner's favor. The court ordered both parties to maintain the status quo of the property until final judgment—neither party may sell, lease, gift, or make any alterations to the disputed house. Key Reasoning: The court found that the property belonged to the petitioner's ancestors and a lease was validly issued in the respondent's name on 13.06.2022. As the petitioner is the respondent's son with a 1/6 share in ancestral property, he has a prima facie right. The court balanced convenience and irreparable harm, determining that preserving the property's status quo protects both parties' interests pending final resolution of the main dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case