Bismilla W/o Shahed Roje vs S.P.R Traansport its proprietor Sayyed Husen Peera Khadri Advocate - N.L. Tahasildar — 48/2023
Case under U Sec 166 of M V Act. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KABK300000782023
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
48/2023
Filing Date
02-02-2023
Registration No
48/2023
Registration Date
04-02-2023
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUNGUND
Judge
1024-SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNGUND
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bismilla W/o Shahed Roje
Adv. B.A.AWATI,
Respondent(s)
S.P.R Traansport its proprietor Sayyed Husen Peera Khadri Advocate - N.L. Tahasildar
The Regional ManagerNew Indiaa Assurance Co. Ltd.
Adv. MAHANTESH H.HOSUR
Ganesh S/o Tavarappa Chavan @ Lamani
Adv. N.L. Tahasildar
Hearing History
Judge: 1024-SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNGUND
EVIDENCE
ORDERS
OBJECTION
OBJECTION
OBJECTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 13-02-2026 | ORDERS |
| 23-01-2026 | OBJECTION |
| 26-12-2025 | OBJECTION |
| 05-12-2025 | OBJECTION |
Interim Orders
Summary The court allowed the petitioner's application (I.A. No. X) to condone a 60-day delay in filing a motor accident claim petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, imposing costs of Rs. 1,000. The court found sufficient cause for the delay, as the petitioner had sustained injuries from the accident and was unable to walk, citing Supreme Court precedent that delays should be liberally construed when there is merit in the case. Subsequently, the court rejected respondent's application (I.A. No. IX) seeking dismissal on limitation grounds, as it became moot following the condonation of delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court allowed the petitioner's application (I.A. No. X) to condone a 60-day delay in filing a motor accident claim petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, imposing costs of Rs. 1,000. The court found sufficient cause for the delay, as the petitioner had sustained injuries from the accident and was unable to walk, citing Supreme Court precedent that delays should be liberally construed when there is merit in the case. Subsequently, the court rejected respondent's application (I.A. No. IX) seeking dismissal on limitation grounds, as it became moot following the condonation of delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts