Venkataramaiah M vs V G Jayaramaiah — 483/2023
Case under Under Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 01st September 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KABR610115702023
Filing Number
483/2023
Filing Date
30-Oct-2023
Registration No
483/2023
Registration Date
30-Oct-2023
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA
Judge
104-Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Venkataramaiah M
Adv. A.SIDDAIAH.
Respondent(s)
-
1.V G Jayaramaiah
-
2.V Harsha Jayaram
-
3.V Yatheen Jayaram
-
4.The Development Officer
Case History
-
01-Sep-2026
Next hearingPending
-
04-Jun-2026
Written Statement
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
28-Mar-2026
Reply
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
17-Mar-2026
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
09-Feb-2026
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
07-Jan-2026
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
19-Nov-2025
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
24-Sep-2025
Objection
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
05-Aug-2025
Objection
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
26-Jun-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
25-Apr-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
10-Jan-2025
OrdersView PDF
-
10-Jan-2025
OrdersView PDF
Case Summary: OS 483/2023 Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction (I.A.No.II) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, with no order as to costs. Key Finding: The Principal Civil Judge found that petitioner Venkataramaiah M failed to establish a prima facie case regarding possession of the disputed property (old katha No.27/2, new katha No.52/52). The court noted inconsistencies between the property measurements in the plaintiff's form No.9 document (25X20) and the measurements claimed in the schedule (60 feet east-west, 17.6 feet north-south), and found insufficient documentary evidence of plaintiff's possession. Consequently, the court declined to grant the interim relief restraining defendants V.G. Jayaramaiah, V. Harsha Jayaram, and V. Yatheen Jayaram from interfering with the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Jan-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
18-Dec-2024
Orders
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
19-Nov-2024
Orders
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
06-Nov-2024
Reply
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
23-Oct-2024
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
25-Sep-2024
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
17-Sep-2024
Objection
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
13-Sep-2024
Reply
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
31-Aug-2024
Reply
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
01-Aug-2024
Reply
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
18-Jul-2024
Reply
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
16-Jul-2024
Reply
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
11-Jul-2024
Reply
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
09-Jul-2024
Arguments
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
01-Jul-2024
Arguments
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
22-Jun-2024
Arguments
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
29-May-2024
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
23-Apr-2024
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
18-Apr-2024
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
08-Apr-2024
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
21-Mar-2024
Written Statement And Objection
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
07-Mar-2024
Written Statement And Objection
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
30-Jan-2024
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
01-Dec-2023
Emergent Notice
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
03-Nov-2023
Emergent Notice
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
02-Nov-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Oct-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 483/2023
Case Summary: OS 483/2023 Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction (I.A.No.II) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, with no order as to costs. Key Finding: The Principal Civil Judge found that petitioner Venkataramaiah M failed to establish a prima facie case regarding possession of the disputed property (old katha No.27/2, new katha No.52/52). The court noted inconsistencies between the property measurements in the plaintiff's form No.9 document (25X20) and the measurements claimed in the schedule (60 feet east-west, 17.6 feet north-south), and found insufficient documentary evidence of plaintiff's possession. Consequently, the court declined to grant the interim relief restraining defendants V.G. Jayaramaiah, V. Harsha Jayaram, and V. Yatheen Jayaram from interfering with the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts