shyamlal vs kishanlal — 42/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39,1,2. Disposed: Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing on 02nd April 2026.

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

CNR: RJPG080001192025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

118/2025

Filing Date

14-10-2025

Registration No

42/2025

Registration Date

14-10-2025

Court

CJ SD ACJM TALUKACOURT CHHOTISADARI

Judge

9-Senior Civil Judge and ACJM

Decision Date

02nd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 39,1,2

Petitioner(s)

shyamlal

Adv. SH. ANIL SINGHAL

Respondent(s)

kishanlal

Hearing History

Judge: 9-Senior Civil Judge and ACJM

02-04-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

24-02-2026

Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

22-01-2026

Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

08-12-2025

Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

Final Orders / Judgements

02-04-2026
Order

Summary The court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff (Shyamlal) against the defendant (Kishnlal) on April 2, 2026. The plaintiff purchased agricultural land in 1995 for ₹94,000 with a written agreement that the defendant would execute a formal deed of sale and complete registration whenever requested, but the defendant repeatedly delayed despite multiple assurances. The court found the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, ruled that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, and ordered the defendant to maintain status quo and refrain from transferring, mortgaging, or alienating the disputed property pending final resolution of the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff (Shyamlal) against the defendant (Kishnlal) on April 2, 2026. The plaintiff purchased agricultural land in 1995 for ₹94,000 with a written agreement that the defendant would execute a formal deed of sale and complete registration whenever requested, but the defendant repeatedly delayed despite multiple assurances. The court found the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, ruled that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, and ordered the defendant to maintain status quo and refrain from transferring, mortgaging, or alienating the disputed property pending final resolution of the main suit. 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

CJ SD ACJM TALUKACOURT CHHOTISADARI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case