Tangevva W/o Rajappa Urf Raju Channal vs Rajapapa Urf Raju S/o Rangappa Channal — 129/2025
Case under U/o 7 Rule 1 of Cpc. Status: Written statement. Next hearing: 25th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KABK700005192025
Next Hearing
25th March 2026
e-Filing Number
20-08-2025
Filing Number
130/2025
Filing Date
29-08-2025
Registration No
129/2025
Registration Date
30-08-2025
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI
Judge
117-PRL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMKHANDI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Tangevva W/o Rajappa Urf Raju Channal
Adv. ASHOK SATYANNAVAR
Mahadev S/o Rajappa Ufr Raju Channal
Adv. ASHOK SATYANNAVAR
Roopa W/o Suresh Yaragudri
Adv. ASHOK SATYANNAVAR
Respondent(s)
Rajapapa Urf Raju S/o Rangappa Channal
Hearing History
Judge: 117-PRL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMKHANDI
Written statement
Amendment Carried out
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Written statement |
| 21-02-2026 | Amendment Carried out |
| 19-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 18-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 06-02-2026 | HEARING |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the application (I.A. No. II) to implead Shri. Hanamant as Defendant No. 2 in the partition suit OS No. 129/2025. The court found him to be a proper party since he executed a registered sale agreement for a portion of the disputed property, though not a necessary party, as the partition suit could be decided without him. The plaintiffs are directed to array the applicant as a proper party and file an amended plaint. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the application (I.A. No. II) to implead Shri. Hanamant as Defendant No. 2 in the partition suit OS No. 129/2025. The court found him to be a proper party since he executed a registered sale agreement for a portion of the disputed property, though not a necessary party, as the partition suit could be decided without him. The plaintiffs are directed to array the applicant as a proper party and file an amended plaint. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts