Sakamma vs Govindaiah — 199/2019

Case under Order 7 Rule 1 Cpc Section 7. Status: EVIDENCE CIVIL. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KADG520021452019

EVIDENCE CIVIL

Next Hearing

08th June 2026

Filing Number

200/2019

Filing Date

22-10-2019

Registration No

199/2019

Registration Date

22-10-2019

Court

CIVIL JUGDE AND JMFC, HONNALI

Judge

255-PRL CIVIL JUGDE AND JMFC HONNALI

Acts & Sections

Order 7 Rule 1 CPC Section 7

Petitioner(s)

Sakamma

Adv. T. Shivappa

Respondent(s)

Govindaiah

Rangamma

Susheelamma

Lakshmamma

Hearing History

Judge: 255-PRL CIVIL JUGDE AND JMFC HONNALI

02-06-2026

EVIDENCE CIVIL

08-04-2026

EVIDENCE CIVIL

13-03-2026

EVIDENCE CIVIL

20-02-2026

EVIDENCE CIVIL

09-02-2026

ORDERS CRIMINAL

Interim Orders

08-11-2021
Issue
03-11-2022
Exhibits
05-06-2023
Deposition
14-07-2023
Deposition
06-06-2024
Deposition
08-11-2024
Deposition
02-07-2025
Deposition
11-08-2025
Deposition
20-11-2025
Deposition
20-02-2026
Orders

Summary of Case 199/2019 (Sakamma v. Govindaiah and others): The court allowed the plaintiff's application (IA No. VII) to produce additional documents under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC in this partition and separate possession suit. The court found the plaintiff's reasons for late production credible and held that allowing the documents would not prejudice the defendants, who would retain full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The defendant's delay argument was rejected as mere technicality. The application was granted subject to payment of Rs. 300 costs, with proceedings to continue for further cross-examination of PW1. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 199/2019 (Sakamma v. Govindaiah and others): The court allowed the plaintiff's application (IA No. VII) to produce additional documents under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC in this partition and separate possession suit. The court found the plaintiff's reasons for late production credible and held that allowing the documents would not prejudice the defendants, who would retain full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The defendant's delay argument was rejected as mere technicality. The application was granted subject to payment of Rs. 300 costs, with proceedings to continue for further cross-examination of PW1. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

CIVIL JUGDE AND JMFC, HONNALI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case