SHOBHA G N vs KRISHNOJI RAO — 3566/2023
Case under U/s 26 and Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc. Status: APPEARANCE OF PARTY. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KABC010146232023
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
3535/2023
Filing Date
09-06-2023
Registration No
3566/2023
Registration Date
09-06-2023
Court
PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Judge
6-CCH13 V ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHOBHA G N
Adv. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL
Respondent(s)
KRISHNOJI RAO
RATHNAMMA
Hearing History
Judge: 6-CCH13 V ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
APPEARANCE OF PARTY
A.D.R.
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | APPEARANCE OF PARTY |
| 09-03-2026 | A.D.R. |
| 13-02-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 17-01-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 18-12-2025 | ORDERS |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. No. 3566/2023 Outcome: Interlocutory Application No. IV was dismissed on January 17, 2026. Plaintiff Shobha G.N. sought to compel defendants Krishnoji Rao and Rathnamma to produce a rental agreement and disclose rent payments, claiming she is the property owner entitled to rent collection. The court rejected this application, finding the plaintiff failed to substantiate her ownership claim with supporting documents. The judge noted that in the prior partition suit (O.S. No. 2062/1990), no share of the disputed property had been allotted to the plaintiff, undermining her legal standing to demand disclosure of rental terms. No costs imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. No. 3566/2023 Outcome: Interlocutory Application No. IV was dismissed on January 17, 2026. Plaintiff Shobha G.N. sought to compel defendants Krishnoji Rao and Rathnamma to produce a rental agreement and disclose rent payments, claiming she is the property owner entitled to rent collection. The court rejected this application, finding the plaintiff failed to substantiate her ownership claim with supporting documents. The judge noted that in the prior partition suit (O.S. No. 2062/1990), no share of the disputed property had been allotted to the plaintiff, undermining her legal standing to demand disclosure of rental terms. No costs imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts