Nagaraju K vs Savithri — 379/2021

Case under Under Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc. Disposed: Uncontested--PLAINT RETURNED on 24th April 2026.

Case disposed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KABR610086902021

Filing Number

380/2021

Filing Date

28-Sep-2021

Registration No

379/2021

Registration Date

28-Sep-2021

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA

Judge

888-Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Decision Date

24-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLAINT RETURNED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Nagaraju K

    Adv. Shivachandra Nail R

  2. 2.Manjunath D

  3. 3.Shrikanth P

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Savithri

  2. 2.The Principal Secretary

  3. 3.The Deputy Commissioner

  4. 4.The Assistant Commissioner

  5. 5.The Tahsildar

  6. 6.The Deputy Tahsildar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    The court rejected the suit and returned the plaint to the plaintiffs, finding it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. The court determined that based on gazette notification CVC/485/2017-18, the actual market value of the agricultural properties at Narayanapura village exceeded the court's jurisdictional limit, and the plaintiffs' valuation under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 1958 was incorrect. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 09-Jan-2026

    Orders

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 02-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  8. 13-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 06-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  10. 03-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 09-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 01-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 23-Jul-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  14. 23-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 17-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 29-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 05-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  18. 15-Jan-2025

    Issues

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 12-Dec-2024

    Objection

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  20. 19-Oct-2024

    Objection

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 21-Aug-2024

    Objection

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 03-Jun-2024

    Objection

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 26-Mar-2024

    Objection

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 21-Feb-2024

    Objection

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 09-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  26. 20-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  27. 05-Sep-2023

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  28. 07-Jul-2023

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  29. 10-Apr-2023

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  30. 03-Mar-2023

    Written Statement And Objection

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  31. 11-Jan-2023

    Summons

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  32. 17-Oct-2022

    Steps

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  33. 12-Sep-2022

    Summons

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  34. 08-Jun-2022

    Summons

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  35. 14-Mar-2022

    Steps

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  36. 18-Jan-2022

    Steps

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  37. 17-Nov-2021

    Steps

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  38. 26-Oct-2021

    Summons

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  39. 28-Sep-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  40. 28-Sep-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 379/2021

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the suit and returned the plaint to the plaintiffs, finding it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. The court determined that based on gazette notification CVC/485/2017-18, the actual market value of the agricultural properties at Narayanapura village exceeded the court's jurisdictional limit, and the plaintiffs' valuation under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 1958 was incorrect. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case