SUNITA DEVI vs MAHESH CHANDRA — 17/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section CA. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

Misc. Civil Appeal - Misc Civil Appeal

CNR: UPBN010038432025

Filing Number

119/2025

Filing Date

19-May-2025

Registration No

17/2025

Registration Date

28-May-2025

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District Judge, Budaun

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 22-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section CA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUNITA DEVI

    Adv. ARPIT SRIVASTAVA

  2. 2.RAJESH CHANDRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAHESH CHANDRA

  2. 2.DHURVESH KUMAR

  3. 3.MUNISHWAR DAS

  4. 4.SUNIL KUMAR

  5. 5.ANIL KUMRAR

  6. 6.SANGITA URF SUNITA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary The court allowed the appeal and set aside the interim order dated 19-04-2025 that had maintained status quo on disputed land (Plot No. 454, Measuring 3.303 hectares) in Badaun district. The court found that the plaintiff had concealed material facts—specifically that an earlier case (No. 296/2022) seeking cancellation of a deed transfer was already pending, and an interim injunction had been sought but rejected in that case. The court held that granting an interim order based on suppressed facts violates procedural fairness, particularly as the co-owner (Savitri Devi) was not made a party to the current suit despite being acknowledged as a co-owner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge, Budaun

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  8. 17-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  9. 13-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  10. 05-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  11. 23-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  12. 16-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  13. 15-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  14. 02-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  15. 19-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  16. 12-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  17. 03-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  18. 25-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  19. 14-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  20. 10-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  21. 24-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  22. 16-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  23. 03-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  24. 16-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  25. 28-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  26. 21-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  27. 12-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  28. 31-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  29. 24-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  30. 17-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  31. 09-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  32. 28-May-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 19-May-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 17/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court allowed the appeal and set aside the interim order dated 19-04-2025 that had maintained status quo on disputed land (Plot No. 454, Measuring 3.303 hectares) in Badaun district. The court found that the plaintiff had concealed material facts—specifically that an earlier case (No. 296/2022) seeking cancellation of a deed transfer was already pending, and an interim injunction had been sought but rejected in that case. The court held that granting an interim order based on suppressed facts violates procedural fairness, particularly as the co-owner (Savitri Devi) was not made a party to the current suit despite being acknowledged as a co-owner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case