Shakira banu vs Jagupar nisha — 49/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order 7 rule 1. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRM090000572025
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
e-Filing Number
19-12-2025
Filing Number
68/2025
Filing Date
19-12-2025
Registration No
49/2025
Registration Date
19-12-2025
Court
District Munsif Court, Mudhukulathur
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shakira banu
Adv. MUNEESWARAN R
Respondent(s)
Jagupar nisha
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Service Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 11-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 06-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 04-03-2026 | Service Pending |
| 02-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition for temporary injunction filed by Shakira Banu against Jakubar Nisha was allowed. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from making any constructions on the disputed 2-foot vacant space on the western side of the plaintiff's property until the main suit is disposed. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff as there was an admitted boundary dispute and the defendant was actively constructing, which could cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff's interests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition for temporary injunction filed by Shakira Banu against Jakubar Nisha was allowed. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from making any constructions on the disputed 2-foot vacant space on the western side of the plaintiff's property until the main suit is disposed. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff as there was an admitted boundary dispute and the defendant was actively constructing, which could cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff's interests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts