JAGADISH NARAYAN vs ENDAR BHADUR — 55/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 43. Disposed: Contested--DECIDED/ DISPOSED on 01st April 2026.
Misc. Civil Appeal
CNR: UPGK010048722024
Filing Number
571/2024
Filing Date
21-May-2024
Registration No
55/2024
Registration Date
21-May-2024
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
4-Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
Decision Date
01-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECIDED/ DISPOSED
Last updated 24-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JAGADISH NARAYAN
Adv. RAJESH MOHAN SARKAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.ENDAR BHADUR
-
2.birendar bhadur singh
-
3.SURENDR BHADUR SINGH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary of Court Decision The Additional District Court (Court No. 4), Gorakhpur, allowed the civil appeal filed by Jagdish Narayan and others, setting aside the trial court's order dated 07.05.2024 that had granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellants from disputed agricultural land in Gola, Gorakhpur. The court found that the trial court failed to properly analyze the evidence and facts, and that the respondents (defendants/first defendants) had fraudulently transferred the properties to second defendants (wives) without proper legal procedure or court authorization. The court determined that both parties had equal 1/2 shares in the disputed properties and that an interim injunction was inappropriate under these circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Apr-2026
Disposed
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
31-Mar-2026
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
26-Mar-2026
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
25-Mar-2026
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
19-Mar-2026
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
24-Feb-2026
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
09-Feb-2026
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
21-Jan-2026
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
12-Jan-2026
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
07-Jan-2026
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
06-Dec-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
21-Nov-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
31-Oct-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
08-Oct-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
17-Sep-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
30-Aug-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
08-Aug-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
11-Jul-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
29-May-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
17-May-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
01-May-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
10-Apr-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
20-Mar-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
21-Feb-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
31-Jan-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
13-Jan-2025
Hearing
Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4
-
11-Dec-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
11-Nov-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
08-Oct-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
11-Sep-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
02-Aug-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
21-May-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-May-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 55/2024
Summary of Court Decision The Additional District Court (Court No. 4), Gorakhpur, allowed the civil appeal filed by Jagdish Narayan and others, setting aside the trial court's order dated 07.05.2024 that had granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellants from disputed agricultural land in Gola, Gorakhpur. The court found that the trial court failed to properly analyze the evidence and facts, and that the respondents (defendants/first defendants) had fraudulently transferred the properties to second defendants (wives) without proper legal procedure or court authorization. The court determined that both parties had equal 1/2 shares in the disputed properties and that an interim injunction was inappropriate under these circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts