Atulala vs Raju alias Rajendra Advocate - MR RAJESH CHOUDHARY — 43/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O39R1,2, r/w 151. Disposed: Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing on 28th March 2026.
Civil Misc. Connected (41) - CIVIL MISC (C)
CNR: RJSK170000922025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
93/2025
Filing Date
28-08-2025
Registration No
43/2025
Registration Date
01-09-2025
Court
JM FATEHPUR TALUKA HQ
Judge
1-JM
Decision Date
28th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Atulala
Adv. MR MUKESH BHATRA
Respondent(s)
Raju alias Rajendra Advocate - MR RAJESH CHOUDHARY
sumitra
vikaram
mukesh
sunil
nagar parishad through ayukat
Adv. MR MANOJ CHAKRA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JM
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 16-01-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 02-01-2026 | Awaiting Services of notices/ summons |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Civil Judge of Fatehpur (Sikkar) partially granted the temporary injunction petition filed by Atulla against Raju (Rajendra) and others. The court found a prima facie case in the petitioner's favor regarding ownership of the disputed land, as the petitioner claimed it was purchased by his grandfather through a deed dated 01.06.1992, while the respondents contended it belonged to temples. The court imposed an interim injunction restraining both parties from transferring, alienating, or changing the status of the disputed property's records and possession pending final determination of the case on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Civil Judge of Fatehpur (Sikkar) partially granted the temporary injunction petition filed by Atulla against Raju (Rajendra) and others. The court found a prima facie case in the petitioner's favor regarding ownership of the disputed land, as the petitioner claimed it was purchased by his grandfather through a deed dated 01.06.1992, while the respondents contended it belonged to temples. The court imposed an interim injunction restraining both parties from transferring, alienating, or changing the status of the disputed property's records and possession pending final determination of the case on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts