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

Case disposed

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section O39R1,2, r/w 151

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

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

28-03-2026
Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

JM FATEHPUR TALUKA HQ All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case