Kallappa S/o Laxman Chippadi vs Muttanna S/o Laxman Aaragi Advocate - PRADHANI PAYAGOND — 60/2024

Case under U Order 21 Rule 11 of Cpc. Status: Notice. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.

Notice Next hearing 16-Apr-2026 this date has passed

EX - Execution Petition Under Order

CNR: KABK700004052024

e-Filing Number

23-07-2024

Filing Number

62/2024

Filing Date

25-Jul-2024

Registration No

60/2024

Registration Date

26-Jul-2024

Court

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI

Judge

117-Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

Last updated 20-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

U Order 21 Rule 11 of Cpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Kallappa S/o Laxman Chippadi

    Adv. NINGAPPA GASTI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Muttanna S/o Laxman Aaragi Advocate - PRADHANI PAYAGOND

Case History

  1. 16-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Notice

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  3. 24-Feb-2026

    Steps / Hg

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  4. 14-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  5. 16-Dec-2025

    Steps / Hg

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  6. 30-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  7. 17-Oct-2025

    Notice

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  8. 06-Sep-2025

    OrdersView PDF

    Summary: The court allowed the decree holder's application for attachment of land (R.S.No.34/1+2/1A) valued at Rs.7.34 paisa located in Muttur village, Bagalkot District, to recover earnest money of Rs.7,28,000 with 6% interest as ordered in a previous decree (O.S.No.31/2020) dated 28.03.2024. The judgment debtor's objection claiming joint family property was rejected as he failed to produce evidence supporting his claim, and the court found he was attempting to avoid satisfying the decree. The attachment order was directed to be proclaimed and communicated to relevant government offices. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  9. 06-Sep-2025

    Notice

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  10. 04-Sep-2025

    Orders

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  11. 01-Sep-2025

    Orders

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  12. 16-Aug-2025

    Orders

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  13. 06-Aug-2025

    Orders

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  14. 31-Jul-2025

    Orders

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  15. 28-Jul-2025

    Orders

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  16. 22-Jul-2025

    Orders

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  17. 11-Jul-2025

    Orders

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  18. 09-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  19. 02-Jul-2025

    Objection

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  20. 26-Jun-2025

    Objection

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  21. 01-Apr-2025

    Objection

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  22. 12-Mar-2025

    Objection

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  23. 10-Mar-2025

    Steps / Hg

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  24. 29-Jan-2025

    Hearing

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  25. 14-Dec-2024

    Steps / Hg

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  26. 09-Dec-2024

    Lok Adalat

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  27. 16-Nov-2024

    Steps / Hg

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  28. 14-Oct-2024

    Steps / Hg

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  29. 02-Sep-2024

    Notice

    Prl.sr.civil Judge And JMFC Jamkhandi

  30. 27-Jul-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 25-Jul-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 60/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court allowed the decree holder's application for attachment of land (R.S.No.34/1+2/1A) valued at Rs.7.34 paisa located in Muttur village, Bagalkot District, to recover earnest money of Rs.7,28,000 with 6% interest as ordered in a previous decree (O.S.No.31/2020) dated 28.03.2024. The judgment debtor's objection claiming joint family property was rejected as he failed to produce evidence supporting his claim, and the court found he was attempting to avoid satisfying the decree. The attachment order was directed to be proclaimed and communicated to relevant government offices. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case