santosh kumar sharma through amit sharma vs ramprasad Advocate - MR MUKESH BHATRA — 55/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O39,R1and2. Disposed: Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

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

CNR: RJSK110001782026

Filing Number

178/2026

Filing Date

04-Jul-2024

Registration No

55/2026

Registration Date

04-Jul-2024

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE FATEHPUR TALUKA HQ

Judge

1-Acjm

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing

Last updated 05-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O39,R1and2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.santosh kumar sharma through amit sharma

    Adv. MR KAPIL DAHIYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ramprasad Advocate - MR MUKESH BHATRA

  2. 2.padam kumar

  3. 3.shantiparasad

  4. 4.girdharilal

  5. 5.kishan

  6. 6.sub registrar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    The Senior Civil Judge of Fatehpur Sikri granted an interim injunction in favor of the petitioner (Suresh Kumar) against the defendants, restraining them from selling or damaging the disputed ancestral joint property. The court found a prima facie case, as both parties acknowledged the property's status as undivided ancestral property where no individual co-owner has the right to sell or demolish specific portions without consent. The court applied the three-stage test for interim injunction and ruled in the petitioner's favor under CPC Order 39 Rules 1-2 and Section 151 CPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 04-Jul-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 55/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Senior Civil Judge of Fatehpur Sikri granted an interim injunction in favor of the petitioner (Suresh Kumar) against the defendants, restraining them from selling or damaging the disputed ancestral joint property. The court found a prima facie case, as both parties acknowledged the property's status as undivided ancestral property where no individual co-owner has the right to sell or demolish specific portions without consent. The court applied the three-stage test for interim injunction and ruled in the petitioner's favor under CPC Order 39 Rules 1-2 and Section 151 CPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case