Rajendra Kumar vs Neeraj Jain — 15/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 43Rule 1,151. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 26th March 2026.
Misc. Civil Appeal
CNR: UPSR010007952024
Filing Number
65/2024
Filing Date
16-05-2024
Registration No
15/2024
Registration Date
16-05-2024
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
4-Additional District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajendra Kumar
Adv. Sunil Kumar Mishra
Respondent(s)
Neeraj Jain
Mahmood Khan
Raksharam Yadav
Rajkamal Mittal
Garima Mittal
Sarthak Mittal
Srashti Mittal
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Additional District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 10-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 20-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 07-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Additional District Judge of Shravasti dismissed Civil Appeal No. 15/2024 and upheld the lower court's order dated 30.04.2024 rejecting the plaintiff's prayer petition. The court found that the plaintiff (Rajendra Kumar) failed to establish a prima facie case for interim injunction, as the disputed agricultural land (Plot 52) had been validly transferred by him on 31.05.2007 to the defendants, whose names were subsequently registered in revenue records on 21.04.2023. Since both parties claim possession of the land and the plaintiff's preliminary case was not substantiated, the court held that no interlocutory injunction could be granted and dismissed the appeal without merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Additional District Judge of Shravasti dismissed Civil Appeal No. 15/2024 and upheld the lower court's order dated 30.04.2024 rejecting the plaintiff's prayer petition. The court found that the plaintiff (Rajendra Kumar) failed to establish a prima facie case for interim injunction, as the disputed agricultural land (Plot 52) had been validly transferred by him on 31.05.2007 to the defendants, whose names were subsequently registered in revenue records on 21.04.2023. Since both parties claim possession of the land and the plaintiff's preliminary case was not substantiated, the court held that no interlocutory injunction could be granted and dismissed the appeal without merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts