Basavaraj S/o Heggappa Dharaneppanavar Urf Kadappanavar vs Guddappa S/o Neelappa Dharaneppanavar urf Kadappanavar — 75/2020
Case under Under Order 7 Rule 1 and 3 Cpc Section 713. Status: For Amended Plaint. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAHV310001932020
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
Filing Number
77/2020
Filing Date
28-05-2020
Registration No
75/2020
Registration Date
28-05-2020
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HANGAL
Judge
356-CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Basavaraj S/o Heggappa Dharaneppanavar Urf Kadappanavar
Adv. K C Pavali
Respondent(s)
Guddappa S/o Neelappa Dharaneppanavar urf Kadappanavar
Chandrappa S/o Neelappa Dharaneppanavar urf Kadappanavar
Nagaraj Adoption son of Gangappa Dharaneppanavar
Chikkappa S/o Ningappa Nellibeeda(Legal Heir)
Santosh S/o Nagappa Bijapur
Hearing History
Judge: 356-CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC
For Amended Plaint
For Amended Plaint
For Amendment and Amended Plaint
HEARING ON I A
NOTICE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | For Amended Plaint |
| 21-01-2026 | For Amended Plaint |
| 01-12-2025 | For Amendment and Amended Plaint |
| 17-10-2025 | HEARING ON I A |
| 30-08-2025 | NOTICE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case: OS.75/2020, Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal Date: 13 November 2020 Outcome: The plaintiff's Interlocutory Application (I.A. No.1) for ad-interim temporary injunction to restrain execution of a compromise decree from OS No.148/2016 was dismissed. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the defendant's possession of the disputed properties and the binding nature of the Lok-Adalat compromise decree were not sufficiently challenged with cogent evidence. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: OS.75/2020, Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal Date: 13 November 2020 Outcome: The plaintiff's Interlocutory Application (I.A. No.1) for ad-interim temporary injunction to restrain execution of a compromise decree from OS No.148/2016 was dismissed. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the defendant's possession of the disputed properties and the binding nature of the Lok-Adalat compromise decree were not sufficiently challenged with cogent evidence. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts