T M Basavarajappa vs Veerupakshappa Advocate - B R MAHENDRAMURTHY — 217/2019
Case under Order 7 Rule 1 Cpc Section 7. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
O.S. - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KADG220013962019
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
217/2019
Filing Date
18-10-2019
Registration No
217/2019
Registration Date
18-10-2019
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI
Judge
251-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
T M Basavarajappa
Adv. YMR
Respondent(s)
Veerupakshappa Advocate - B R MAHENDRAMURTHY
Hearing History
Judge: 251-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 30-01-2026 | HEARING |
| 03-01-2026 | HEARING |
| 08-10-2025 | HEARING |
| 03-10-2025 | HEARING |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 217/2019 The defendant Veerupakshappa's application (I.A.No.XI) seeking permission to amend his written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was rejected with costs of Rs. 500 on 13 February 2024. The court found the defendant had been dilatory in prosecuting the case, having taken multiple adjournments and previously filing a similar amendment application (I.A.No.VI) that was already allowed. The judge determined that the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds meeting the legal test for amendments filed after trial commencement, and concluded the application was merely a delaying tactic rather than a genuine necessity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 217/2019 The defendant Veerupakshappa's application (I.A.No.XI) seeking permission to amend his written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was rejected with costs of Rs. 500 on 13 February 2024. The court found the defendant had been dilatory in prosecuting the case, having taken multiple adjournments and previously filing a similar amendment application (I.A.No.VI) that was already allowed. The judge determined that the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds meeting the legal test for amendments filed after trial commencement, and concluded the application was merely a delaying tactic rather than a genuine necessity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts