JAGADISH.K vs MADHUSUDHAN — 2/2025

Case under Under Order 21 Rule 2 of Cpc. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

EX - Execution Petition Under Order

CNR: KAMS080000132025

Filing Number

11/2025

Filing Date

07-Jan-2025

Registration No

2/2025

Registration Date

15-Jan-2025

Court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU

Judge

434-Judge Court Of Small Causes

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Last updated 10-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Order 21 Rule 2 of Cpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JAGADISH.K

    Adv. K.B.NAGESHA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MADHUSUDHAN

  2. 2.SIDDARAMU H S

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    The Principal Judge of the District Court at Mysuru dismissed an execution petition for non-prosecution under CPC Order 17 Rules 2-3 and Section 9, as the Judgment Debtor (DHr) remained absent despite being called for hearing and failed to take any steps to contest the petition. The court found no grounds to adjourn further, concluding that the DHr showed no interest in pursuing the matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  4. 07-Feb-2026

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  5. 03-Jan-2026

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  6. 06-Nov-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  7. 23-Aug-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  8. 19-Jul-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  9. 03-May-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  10. 24-Feb-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  11. 16-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 07-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal Judge of the District Court at Mysuru dismissed an execution petition for non-prosecution under CPC Order 17 Rules 2-3 and Section 9, as the Judgment Debtor (DHr) remained absent despite being called for hearing and failed to take any steps to contest the petition. The court found no grounds to adjourn further, concluding that the DHr showed no interest in pursuing the matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case