DEVARAJU H.R. vs ALTOM CRIDO HOME FINANCE PVT. LTD., REP. BY MANAGER, HASSAN — 58/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O,7,RULE,1,AND,2,R/W,11. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED / REJECTED OTHERWISE on 03rd June 2026.

Case disposedSub Stage

A.C. - Arbitration Cases

CNR: KAHS010076202025

Filing Number

58/2025

Filing Date

13-Nov-2025

Registration No

58/2025

Registration Date

14-Nov-2025

Court

PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN

Judge

335-Prl. District And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

03-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED / REJECTED OTHERWISE

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O,7,RULE,1,AND,2,R/W,11

Petitioner(s)

1.DEVARAJU H.R.

Adv. N PREMACHANDRA

Respondent(s)

1.ALTOM CRIDO HOME FINANCE PVT. LTD., REP. BY MANAGER, HASSAN

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
03-Jun-2026

OrdersView PDF

The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hassan dismissed petition AC 58/2025 filed by DEVARAJU H.R. against ALTOM CRIDO HOME FINANCE PVT. LTD. on 3 June 2026. The petitioner and counsel failed to appear and take necessary steps even after the case was called again at 5:00 p.m., providing no grounds for further adjournment, resulting in dismissal for non-prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
03-Jun-2026

Disposed

Prl. District And Sessions Judge
17-Apr-2026

Notice

Prl. District And Sessions Judge
18-Mar-2026

Arguments

Prl. District And Sessions Judge
29-Jan-2026

Arguments

Prl. District And Sessions Judge
10-Dec-2025

Arguments

Prl. District And Sessions Judge
24-Nov-2025

Arguments

Prl. District And Sessions Judge
22-Nov-2025

Arguments

Prl. District And Sessions Judge
18-Nov-2025

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
13-Nov-2025

Case filed

Registration No. 58/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hassan dismissed petition AC 58/2025 filed by DEVARAJU H.R. against ALTOM CRIDO HOME FINANCE PVT. LTD. on 3 June 2026. The petitioner and counsel failed to appear and take necessary steps even after the case was called again at 5:00 p.m., providing no grounds for further adjournment, resulting in dismissal for non-prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.