Jayalakshmi vs Rudrappa — 196/2021
Case under Order 7 Rule 1 Cpc Section 7. Status: EVIDENCE CIVIL. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
O.S. - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KADG220032472021
Next Hearing
25th June 2026
Filing Number
197/2021
Filing Date
10-08-2021
Registration No
196/2021
Registration Date
10-08-2021
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI
Judge
659-I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jayalakshmi
Adv. Dhananjaya K M
Respondent(s)
Rudrappa
Bairesha
Hearing History
Judge: 659-I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI
EVIDENCE CIVIL
EVIDENCE CIVIL
EVIDENCE CIVIL
EVIDENCE CIVIL
EVIDENCE CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | EVIDENCE CIVIL |
| 10-04-2026 | EVIDENCE CIVIL |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE CIVIL |
| 21-02-2026 | EVIDENCE CIVIL |
| 12-02-2026 | EVIDENCE CIVIL |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS 196/2021 Outcome: Plaintiff Jayalakshmi's application to amend the plaint was ALLOWED. The court permitted her to include an additional ancestral property in the suit schedule and directed her to produce an amended plaint by 16.06.2025. Key Issue: Jayalakshmi sought to add a property to her partition suit against Rudrappa, claiming she discovered after filing that this property was also ancestral/joint family property initially excluded due to lack of documents. Defendant No.2 objected, arguing the amendment was barred and that prior settlement had already allocated the property to him. Court's Decision: The court found the amendment necessary to determine the dispute between parties and applied the liberal approach mandated by apex court precedent for amendments before trial commencement, noting it would not change the suit's nature or create new causes of action. Defendants retain opportunity to file additional written statements and cross-examine witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS 196/2021 Outcome: Plaintiff Jayalakshmi's application to amend the plaint was ALLOWED. The court permitted her to include an additional ancestral property in the suit schedule and directed her to produce an amended plaint by 16.06.2025. Key Issue: Jayalakshmi sought to add a property to her partition suit against Rudrappa, claiming she discovered after filing that this property was also ancestral/joint family property initially excluded due to lack of documents. Defendant No.2 objected, arguing the amendment was barred and that prior settlement had already allocated the property to him. Court's Decision: The court found the amendment necessary to determine the dispute between parties and applied the liberal approach mandated by apex court precedent for amendments before trial commencement, noting it would not change the suit's nature or create new causes of action. Defendants retain opportunity to file additional written statements and cross-examine witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts