Shantamma W/o Channappa Malled Age 52 Yrs Occ Agri and Household R/o Balabatti Tq Yedrami. vs Basawaraj S/o Siddappa Hawaldar Age 65 Yrs Occ Agri and Household R/o Balabatti Tq Yedrami. — 96/2021

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: SUMMONS. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAKB620017002021

SUMMONS

Next Hearing

17th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

94/2021

Filing Date

16-09-2021

Registration No

96/2021

Registration Date

23-09-2021

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JEVARGI

Judge

328-CIVIL JUDGE JMFC,Jewargi

Acts & Sections

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE Section 26

Petitioner(s)

Shantamma W/o Channappa Malled Age 52 Yrs Occ Agri and Household R/o Balabatti Tq Yedrami.

Adv. J.V.HATTI

Respondent(s)

Basawaraj S/o Siddappa Hawaldar Age 65 Yrs Occ Agri and Household R/o Balabatti Tq Yedrami.

Hearing History

Judge: 328-CIVIL JUDGE JMFC,Jewargi

07-03-2026

SUMMONS

13-02-2026

SUMMONS

09-01-2026

SUMMONS

21-11-2025

EVIDENCE-CIVIL

25-10-2025

EVIDENCE-CIVIL

Interim Orders

11-10-2022
Orders
24-02-2023
Issue
05-12-2024
Deposition
19-09-2025
Deposition
09-01-2026
Deposition

Case Summary Case No.: O.S. No. 96/2021 Order Date: 09.01.2026 Outcome: The court found the plaintiff's case to be based on false claims and fabricated documents. The court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff filed false statements, presented forged exhibits (NIP-28, NIP-29, NIP-30), and produced false witnesses to support baseless claims regarding land ownership and possession. The plaintiff was found to have submitted a false suit with false evidence and false testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case No.: O.S. No. 96/2021 Order Date: 09.01.2026 Outcome: The court found the plaintiff's case to be based on false claims and fabricated documents. The court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff filed false statements, presented forged exhibits (NIP-28, NIP-29, NIP-30), and produced false witnesses to support baseless claims regarding land ownership and possession. The plaintiff was found to have submitted a false suit with false evidence and false testimony. 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

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JEVARGI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case