Shantakumar S/o Sidramappa Goushetty age 46 years occ agriculture Ro Mashal village vs Shankreppa So Sidramappa Goushetty age 22 years occ 22 yrs occ agriculture Ro Mashal village — 20/2016

Case under U/o Vii Rule 1 and 2 Cpc Section UnderorderVIIrule1R/wsec26ofCPC. Status: EVIDENCE... Next hearing: 09th June 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAKB320002432016

EVIDENCE..

Next Hearing

09th June 2026

Filing Number

20/2016

Filing Date

22-03-2016

Registration No

20/2016

Registration Date

23-03-2016

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AFZALPUR

Judge

323-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AFZALPUR

Acts & Sections

U/o Vii Rule 1 and 2 Cpc Section UnderorderVIIrule1R/wsec26ofCPC

Petitioner(s)

Shantakumar S/o Sidramappa Goushetty age 46 years occ agriculture Ro Mashal village

Adv. Sri. K.P.Biradar Adv

Respondent(s)

Shankreppa So Sidramappa Goushetty age 22 years occ 22 yrs occ agriculture Ro Mashal village

Satish Rathod village Accountant Mashal village Tq Afzalpur

Hearing History

Judge: 323-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AFZALPUR

03-06-2026

EVIDENCE..

02-05-2026

EVIDENCE..

30-04-2026

EVIDENCE..

27-04-2026

EVIDENCE..

15-04-2026

EVIDENCE..

Interim Orders

15-06-2017
Deposition
31-07-2017
Judgment
22-03-2018
Deposition
06-12-2018
Deposition
16-03-2019
Deposition
27-09-2019
Orders
03-01-2020
Deposition
28-02-2020
Deposition
31-01-2025
Deposition
28-10-2017
Issue
19-12-2025
Orders
18-03-2026
Deposition
08-04-2026
Deposition

Case Summary: 20/2016 Outcome: The petition was dismissed. The court found that Section 402 IPC was not applicable to the case and that the conditions required under Section 20 of the relevant act were not satisfied. The court determined there was insufficient evidence to support the petitioner's claims and ruled against the petition accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 20/2016 Outcome: The petition was dismissed. The court found that Section 402 IPC was not applicable to the case and that the conditions required under Section 20 of the relevant act were not satisfied. The court determined there was insufficient evidence to support the petitioner's claims and ruled against the petition accordingly. 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 JUDGE AND JMFC, AFZALPUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case