Malatesh Bharamappa Barker vs Dyamanna Hanamantappa Yalavigi @ Bandivaddar — 129/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7R1&3. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAHV600007432024
Filing Number
129/2024
Filing Date
23-Apr-2024
Registration No
129/2024
Registration Date
23-Apr-2024
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR
Judge
361-CIVIL Judge and JMFC
Last updated 13-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Malatesh Bharamappa Barker
Adv. P.R.KALAL.
Respondent(s)
-
1.Dyamanna Hanamantappa Yalavigi @ Bandivaddar
-
2.Nagavva Dyamanna Yalavigi @ Bandivaddar
Case History
-
04-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
07-Feb-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
17-Dec-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
23-Oct-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
03-Sep-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
02-Aug-2025
DepositionView PDF
In OS No. 129/2024, dated 02-08-2025, the court dismissed the petition with directions to the petitioner to pursue the matter through appropriate legal remedies. The court found that the petitioner had not complied with procedural requirements and that the evidence presented under Section 426 was insufficient to support the claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Aug-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
18-Jun-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
22-Mar-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
01-Feb-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
13-Dec-2024
Evidence
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
19-Oct-2024
Written Statement
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
23-Aug-2024
Written Statement
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
10-Jul-2024
Summons
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
06-Jun-2024
Summons
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
23-Apr-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Apr-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 129/2024
In OS No. 129/2024, dated 02-08-2025, the court dismissed the petition with directions to the petitioner to pursue the matter through appropriate legal remedies. The court found that the petitioner had not complied with procedural requirements and that the evidence presented under Section 426 was insufficient to support the claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts