Puttaiah vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd (KPTCL) R/by its managing director — 364/2022

Case under Under Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc Section 26. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 29th June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 29-Jun-2026

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KABR610111362022

Filing Number

367/2022

Filing Date

09-Sep-2022

Registration No

364/2022

Registration Date

09-Sep-2022

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA

Judge

888-Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Puttaiah

    Adv. Vidya Selvamany

  2. 2.Rangaswamy M

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd (KPTCL) R/by its managing director

Case History

  1. 29-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  3. 04-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 04-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 04-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 22-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 31-Jan-2025

    OrdersView PDF

  8. 31-Jan-2025

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: O.S. 364/2022 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction on January 31, 2025. The Additional Civil Judge found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and therefore did not meet the threshold requirements for granting injunctive relief. Key Facts: Puttaiah and Rangaswamy sought to restrain KPTCL from erecting transmission towers on their property (1 acre 13 guntas in Sy.No.95/2, Arishinakunte Village). However, the court determined that the sale deed boundaries did not align with the suit property, and revenue documents alone cannot prove possession. KPTCL demonstrated statutory authority under the Electricity Act 2003 and Indian Telegraphic Act 1885 to construct the 220 kV transmission line, which had been publicly notified and approved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  9. 31-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  10. 30-Jan-2025

    Orders

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 05-Dec-2024

    Orders

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 28-Oct-2024

    Orders

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 05-Sep-2024

    Orders

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  14. 05-Jul-2024

    Orders

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 24-Apr-2024

    Reply

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 16-Jan-2024

    Reply

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 22-Nov-2023

    Reply

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  18. 26-Oct-2023

    Reply

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 04-Oct-2023

    Reply

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  20. 19-Aug-2023

    Reply

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 05-Aug-2023

    Reply

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 26-Jul-2023

    Hearing

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 30-May-2023

    Hearing

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 11-Apr-2023

    Hearing

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 15-Mar-2023

    Hearing

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  26. 27-Feb-2023

    Hearing

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  27. 03-Jan-2023

    Hearing

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  28. 22-Nov-2022

    Written Statement And Objection

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  29. 11-Oct-2022

    Summons

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  30. 13-Sep-2022

    Emergent Notice

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  31. 12-Sep-2022

    Emergent Notice

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  32. 09-Sep-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 09-Sep-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 364/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S. 364/2022 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction on January 31, 2025. The Additional Civil Judge found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and therefore did not meet the threshold requirements for granting injunctive relief. Key Facts: Puttaiah and Rangaswamy sought to restrain KPTCL from erecting transmission towers on their property (1 acre 13 guntas in Sy.No.95/2, Arishinakunte Village). However, the court determined that the sale deed boundaries did not align with the suit property, and revenue documents alone cannot prove possession. KPTCL demonstrated statutory authority under the Electricity Act 2003 and Indian Telegraphic Act 1885 to construct the 220 kV transmission line, which had been publicly notified and approved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case