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

Case disposed

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 43Rule 1,151

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

26-03-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

Judgement

10-03-2026

Hearing

20-02-2026

Hearing

07-02-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

26-03-2026
Copy of Judgement

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case