Ramesh S/o Dharmanna Rathod, Age 49 years, Occ Coolie. vs Chandrayya S/o Mallanngouda Devangaon, Age Major, Occ. Owner of Tipper No. KA-33-A-8616. — 44/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21,rule,11,of,cpc. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE on 06th March 2026.

Case disposedSub Stage

Ex.C - Execution Cases

CNR: KAKB510003122025

Filing Number

44/2025

Filing Date

20-Aug-2025

Registration No

44/2025

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section 21,rule,11,of,cpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ramesh S/o Dharmanna Rathod, Age 49 years, Occ Coolie.

    Adv. V.S.Reddy Malipatil

  2. 2.Sarita W/o Ramesh Rathod, Age 43 years, Occ Household

  3. 3.Geeta D/o Ramesh Rathod, Age 20 years, Occ. Student

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Chandrayya S/o Mallanngouda Devangaon, Age Major, Occ. Owner of Tipper No. KA-33-A-8616.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    The Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chittapur closed Execution Petition No. 44/2025 as fully satisfied. The court's decision was based on the defendant's counsel filing a memo confirming that the judgment debtor (JDr) had deposited the required compensation amount, thereby satisfying the execution petitioner (EP). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Chittapur

  4. 12-Dec-2025

    Summons

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Chittapur

  5. 06-Nov-2025

    Notice

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Chittapur

  6. 20-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 20-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 44/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chittapur closed Execution Petition No. 44/2025 as fully satisfied. The court's decision was based on the defendant's counsel filing a memo confirming that the judgment debtor (JDr) had deposited the required compensation amount, thereby satisfying the execution petitioner (EP). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case