Rajashekhar @ Rajkumar S/o Basalingappa Pasodi Age 43 yrs Occ Agri R/o Motoli Tq Afalpur vs Bavuray Pujari S/o Mallappa Age 36 yrs Occ Agri R/o Sonakanahalli Tq Indi Dist Vijayapur — 1/2020
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section Act. Status: SUMMONS. Next hearing: 15th April 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAKB320000042020
Next Hearing
15th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1/2020
Filing Date
06-01-2020
Registration No
1/2020
Registration Date
06-01-2020
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AFZALPUR
Judge
323-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AFZALPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajashekhar @ Rajkumar S/o Basalingappa Pasodi Age 43 yrs Occ Agri R/o Motoli Tq Afalpur
Adv. Sri. S.S.Patil Adv
Respondent(s)
Bavuray Pujari S/o Mallappa Age 36 yrs Occ Agri R/o Sonakanahalli Tq Indi Dist Vijayapur
Hearing History
Judge: 323-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AFZALPUR
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | SUMMONS | |
| 17-03-2026 | SUMMONS | |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE. | |
| 12-03-2026 | EVIDENCE. | |
| 09-03-2026 | EVIDENCE. |
Interim Orders
Summary In Criminal Case CC 1/2020 (PW-1) dated 13-03-2026, the court examined the arguments of both counsel regarding a civil dispute involving property and financial claims. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient evidence to prove the alleged facts and found contradictions in the testimonies presented. The court ruled against the plaintiff and dismissed the case, noting that the burden of proof had not been met under Section 145(2) and relevant provisions of law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In Criminal Case CC 1/2020 (PW-1) dated 13-03-2026, the court examined the arguments of both counsel regarding a civil dispute involving property and financial claims. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient evidence to prove the alleged facts and found contradictions in the testimonies presented. The court ruled against the plaintiff and dismissed the case, noting that the burden of proof had not been met under Section 145(2) and relevant provisions of law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts