Dr.Nataraj R.Rao vs Meega Chandrashekar — 8/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Under,Section,26,Order,VII,Rule,1. Status: Await orders from HighCourt. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KACM510001822022
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
Filing Number
8/2022
Filing Date
08-04-2022
Registration No
8/2022
Registration Date
08-04-2022
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,NARASIMHARAJAPURA
Judge
1218-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NARASIMHARAJAPURA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dr.Nataraj R.Rao
Adv. Sri.B.Veerendrakumar
Respondent(s)
Meega Chandrashekar
Hearing History
Judge: 1218-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NARASIMHARAJAPURA
Await orders from HighCourt
Await orders from HighCourt
Await orders from HighCourt
Await orders from HighCourt
Await orders from HighCourt
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Await orders from HighCourt |
| 06-02-2026 | Await orders from HighCourt |
| 09-01-2026 | Await orders from HighCourt |
| 12-12-2025 | Await orders from HighCourt |
| 22-11-2025 | Await orders from HighCourt |
Interim Orders
Summary The court rejected the defendant's application (I.A. No. XVII) to amend the written statement in a suit for specific performance of contract. The court found that the proposed amendment sought to withdraw an admission and fundamentally change the nature of the defence after trial had commenced, which is impermissible under law. The judge ruled that the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds or due diligence for the late amendment and that allowing it would cause irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the defendant's application (I.A. No. XVII) to amend the written statement in a suit for specific performance of contract. The court found that the proposed amendment sought to withdraw an admission and fundamentally change the nature of the defence after trial had commenced, which is impermissible under law. The judge ruled that the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds or due diligence for the late amendment and that allowing it would cause irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts