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.
EX - Execution Petition Under Order
CNR: KABK700004052024
Next Hearing
16th April 2026
e-Filing Number
23-07-2024
Filing Number
62/2024
Filing Date
25-07-2024
Registration No
60/2024
Registration Date
26-07-2024
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI
Judge
117-PRL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMKHANDI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kallappa S/o Laxman Chippadi
Adv. NINGAPPA GASTI
Respondent(s)
Muttanna S/o Laxman Aaragi Advocate - PRADHANI PAYAGOND
Hearing History
Judge: 117-PRL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMKHANDI
NOTICE
Steps / Hg
HEARING
Steps / Hg
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | NOTICE |
| 24-02-2026 | Steps / Hg |
| 14-01-2026 | HEARING |
| 16-12-2025 | Steps / Hg |
| 30-10-2025 | HEARING |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts