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
e-Filing Number
19-12-2025
Filing Number
68/2025
Filing Date
19-Dec-2025
Registration No
49/2025
Registration Date
19-Dec-2025
Court
District Munsif Court, Mudhukulathur
Judge
1-District Munsif
Last updated 25-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Shakira banu
Adv. MUNEESWARAN R
Respondent(s)
-
1.Jagupar nisha
Case History
-
06-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
23-Mar-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
11-Mar-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
06-Mar-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
04-Mar-2026
Service Pending
District Munsif
-
02-Mar-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
19-Feb-2026
Other wiseView PDF
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.
-
19-Feb-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
19-Jan-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
19-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 49/2025
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.
Explore other courts