Laxman S/o Gemu Jadhav Age 52 years Occ. Coolie. vs Chandrayya S/o Mallanngouda Devangaon, Age. Major Occ. Owner of Tipper No. KA-33, A-8616, — 42/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21rule11ofcpc. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE on 06th March 2026.
Ex.C - Execution Cases
CNR: KAKB510003092025
Filing Number
42/2025
Filing Date
20-Aug-2025
Registration No
42/2025
Registration Date
20-Aug-2025
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHITAPUR
Judge
951-Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Chittapur
Decision Date
06-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE
Last updated 13-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Laxman S/o Gemu Jadhav Age 52 years Occ. Coolie.
Adv. V.S.Reddy Malipatil
-
2.Tarabai W/o Laxman Jadhav Age 49 years, Occ. Household
-
3.Somanath S/o Laxman Jadhav, Age 25 years, Occ. Coolie
-
4.Shankar S/o Laxman Jadhav, Age 23 years, Occ, Coolie.
-
5.Papesh S/o Laxman Jadhav, Age 21 years, Occ. Coolie.
Respondent(s)
-
1.Chandrayya S/o Mallanngouda Devangaon, Age. Major Occ. Owner of Tipper No. KA-33, A-8616,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Mar-2026
OrdersView PDF
In Ex No. 42/2025, the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Chittapur closed the execution petition (EP) as fully satisfied after the defendant's counsel filed a memo confirming that the judgment debtor had deposited the required compensation amount. The court's decision was based on the defendant's compliance with the compensation obligation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Mar-2026
Disposed
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Chittapur
-
12-Dec-2025
Summons
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Chittapur
-
06-Nov-2025
Notice
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Chittapur
-
20-Aug-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 42/2025
In Ex No. 42/2025, the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Chittapur closed the execution petition (EP) as fully satisfied after the defendant's counsel filed a memo confirming that the judgment debtor had deposited the required compensation amount. The court's decision was based on the defendant's compliance with the compensation obligation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts