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

APPEARANCE OF PARTY

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

U/s 26 and Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc

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

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

17-01-2026
Orders
17-01-2026
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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case