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.

Appearance Of Party Next hearing 10-Jun-2026 this date has passed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KABC010146232023

Filing Number

3535/2023

Filing Date

09-Jun-2023

Registration No

3566/2023

Registration Date

09-Jun-2023

Court

PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE

Judge

6-Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

U/s 26 and Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHOBHA G N

    Adv. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KRISHNOJI RAO

  2. 2.RATHNAMMA

Case History

  1. 10-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Appearance Of Party

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    A.D.R.

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  4. 13-Feb-2026

    Summons

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  5. 17-Jan-2026

    OrdersView PDF

  6. 17-Jan-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    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.

  7. 17-Jan-2026

    Summons

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  8. 18-Dec-2025

    Orders

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  9. 18-Nov-2025

    Orders

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  10. 10-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  11. 26-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  12. 02-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  13. 23-Jun-2025

    Hearing

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  14. 11-Apr-2025

    Summons

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  15. 18-Mar-2025

    Summons

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  16. 28-Jan-2025

    Summons

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  17. 06-Dec-2024

    Objection

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  18. 21-Oct-2024

    Objection

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  19. 03-Sep-2024

    Objection

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  20. 03-Aug-2024

    Objection

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  21. 05-Jul-2024

    Objection

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  22. 05-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  23. 25-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  24. 07-Mar-2024

    Summons

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  25. 01-Feb-2024

    Summons

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  26. 05-Dec-2023

    Summons

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  27. 02-Nov-2023

    Summons

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  28. 03-Aug-2023

    Summons

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  29. 24-Jun-2023

    Notice

    Cch13 V Addl. City CIVIL And Sessions Judge

  30. 09-Jun-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 09-Jun-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3566/2023

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case