T S Puttaraju S/o T.S. Singachar vs D 1 Shanthamma W/o Late K.R.Prakash Advocate - M. Lingappa — 11/2024
Case under U/s 26 Rule 7 of Cpc Section 26R/w7R1. Status: EVIDENCE CIVIL. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KADG210001302024
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
e-Filing Number
19-02-2024
Filing Number
11/2024
Filing Date
26-02-2024
Registration No
11/2024
Registration Date
26-02-2024
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI
Judge
972-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
T S Puttaraju S/o T.S. Singachar
Adv. PARSHWANATHA D
Chandrakanthe Gowda S/o Narayana Gowda
Adv. PARSHWANATHA D
Respondent(s)
D 1 Shanthamma W/o Late K.R.Prakash Advocate - M. Lingappa
D 2 Roopa P D/o Late K.R.Prakash
Adv. M. Lingappa
D 3 K P Naveen Kumar S/o Late K.R.Prakash
Adv. M. Lingappa
D 4 Mamatha B C W/o K.P.Naveen Kumar
Adv. M. Lingappa
Hearing History
Judge: 972-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI
EVIDENCE CIVIL
EVIDENCE CIVIL
ORDERS CIVIL
ORDERS CIVIL
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | EVIDENCE CIVIL |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE CIVIL |
| 26-02-2026 | ORDERS CIVIL |
| 26-02-2026 | ORDERS CIVIL |
| 06-02-2026 | HEARING |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. No. 11/2024 The court rejected the defendants' application (IA No. 4) seeking permission to amend their written statement by adding a counterclaim for cancellation of a property sale agreement. The court found the amendment was filed too late—after issues were already framed and plaintiff's examination had commenced—and the defendants failed to demonstrate due diligence in seeking it earlier. The suit for specific performance of the sale contract continues, with the case posted for further cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. No. 11/2024 The court rejected the defendants' application (IA No. 4) seeking permission to amend their written statement by adding a counterclaim for cancellation of a property sale agreement. The court found the amendment was filed too late—after issues were already framed and plaintiff's examination had commenced—and the defendants failed to demonstrate due diligence in seeking it earlier. The suit for specific performance of the sale contract continues, with the case posted for further cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts