Sunil kumar vs Salma — 219/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 38. Status: For filing Written Statement. Next hearing: 30th May 2026.
Civil Suit
CNR: UPSI120013882020
Next Hearing
30th May 2026
Filing Number
256/2020
Filing Date
26-08-2020
Registration No
219/2020
Registration Date
26-08-2020
Court
Outlying Court Biswan
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr. Div.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sunil kumar
Adv. Kamlesh kumar morya
Respondent(s)
Salma
Mouli ali
Saktu
Mathura
Syam
Hajari
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr. Div.
For filing Written Statement
For filing Written Statement
For filing Written Statement
For filing Written Statement
For filing Written Statement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-05-2026 | For filing Written Statement |
| 23-04-2026 | For filing Written Statement |
| 22-04-2026 | For filing Written Statement |
| 09-04-2026 | For filing Written Statement |
| 12-03-2026 | For filing Written Statement |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 219/2020 Sunil Kumar v. Salma, Mouli Ali, and Saktu The court issued a temporary injunction restraining defendants nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with or constructing on the disputed property (Plot no. 299, measuring 0.178 hectares, located in Sukhawalka village, Biswani, Sitapur district). The petitioner's name appears in the revenue records as a landowner, whereas the defendants have no legal connection to the property. The court found sufficient grounds for interim protection of the disputed property and directed the defendants not to commit any trespass until the next hearing on September 23, 2020. A commission was also accepted for the court's subsequent orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 219/2020 Sunil Kumar v. Salma, Mouli Ali, and Saktu The court issued a temporary injunction restraining defendants nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with or constructing on the disputed property (Plot no. 299, measuring 0.178 hectares, located in Sukhawalka village, Biswani, Sitapur district). The petitioner's name appears in the revenue records as a landowner, whereas the defendants have no legal connection to the property. The court found sufficient grounds for interim protection of the disputed property and directed the defendants not to commit any trespass until the next hearing on September 23, 2020. A commission was also accepted for the court's subsequent orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts