Indrapal vs Munshi Advocate - DINESH SHARMA — 19/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section o39rule1and2. Disposed: Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing on 16th March 2026.

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

CNR: RJSK170000392026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

34/2026

Filing Date

16-02-2026

Registration No

19/2026

Registration Date

25-02-2026

Court

JM FATEHPUR TALUKA HQ

Judge

1-JM

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section o39rule1and2

Petitioner(s)

Indrapal

Adv. MR MUKESH BHATRA

Respondent(s)

Munshi Advocate - DINESH SHARMA

Shabana bano

Adv. DINESH SHARMA

Jubeda bano

Adv. DINESH SHARMA

moh. samir

Adv. DINESH SHARMA

tehsildar

sub registar

Patawari

Hearing History

Judge: 1-JM

16-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

07-03-2026

Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
Order

The Civil Judge of Fatehpur granted an interim injunction (Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC) in favor of the plaintiff Indrapal against the defendants. The court found a prima facie case favoring the plaintiff, holding that the disputed gift deeds dated 06.08.2025 were potentially invalid since the land originally belonged to the plaintiff, who allegedly never sold it to defendants 1 and 3, and that property transfers exceeding Rs. 100 require registered documents. The defendants were restrained from selling, transferring, or constructing on the disputed property pending the main suit's decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Civil Judge of Fatehpur granted an interim injunction (Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC) in favor of the plaintiff Indrapal against the defendants. The court found a prima facie case favoring the plaintiff, holding that the disputed gift deeds dated 06.08.2025 were potentially invalid since the land originally belonged to the plaintiff, who allegedly never sold it to defendants 1 and 3, and that property transfers exceeding Rs. 100 require registered documents. The defendants were restrained from selling, transferring, or constructing on the disputed property pending the main suit's decision. 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

JM FATEHPUR TALUKA HQ All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case