Smt. Alice Pinto vs Smt. Juliana Pinto — 49/2022
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section VII,Rule1and2,RW26. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KACM410007352022
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
49/2022
Filing Date
22-06-2022
Registration No
49/2022
Registration Date
22-06-2022
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,MUDIGERE
Judge
1217-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Smt. Alice Pinto
Adv. D S SUDHIR
Respondent(s)
Smt. Juliana Pinto
Miss Cleeta Pinto
Smt. Shanthi Pinto
Smt. Linda Pinto
Smt. Reshma Pinto
Mrs. Serpin Pinto
Lancy Pinto
Pricilla Pinto
Smt. Jelly Pinto
H.M. Duggegowda
Hearing History
Judge: 1217-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE
EVIDENCE
ORDERS
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 03-03-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 26-02-2026 | HEARING | |
| 17-02-2026 | HEARING | |
| 29-01-2026 | HEARING |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case: O.S. No. 49/2022 | Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudigere | Dated: 7th March 2026 Outcome: The defendants' application (IA No. XVI) to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff's plaint adequately discloses a cause of action, as she specifically pleaded that she was unaware the properties were ancestral assets when filing an earlier partition suit and discovered this only when defendants dealt with the properties. The court rejected the defendants' argument that all partition properties must be included in a single suit, holding that questions of knowledge, limitation, and whether omission from the earlier suit bars the present suit require evidence and cannot be decided at the threshold stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: O.S. No. 49/2022 | Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudigere | Dated: 7th March 2026 Outcome: The defendants' application (IA No. XVI) to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff's plaint adequately discloses a cause of action, as she specifically pleaded that she was unaware the properties were ancestral assets when filing an earlier partition suit and discovered this only when defendants dealt with the properties. The court rejected the defendants' argument that all partition properties must be included in a single suit, holding that questions of knowledge, limitation, and whether omission from the earlier suit bars the present suit require evidence and cannot be decided at the threshold stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts