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
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
Petitioner(s)
shyamlal
Adv. SH. ANIL SINGHAL
Respondent(s)
kishanlal
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Senior Civil Judge and ACJM
Disposed
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts