PUTTABORAMMA @ BORAMMA vs BORAIAH @ CHIKKAKONA CHIKKAIAH — 135/2014

Case under Under Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 26 of C.p.c. Section 26,. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAMS080003822014

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

06th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

135/2014

Filing Date

17-06-2014

Registration No

135/2014

Registration Date

17-06-2014

Court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU

Judge

859-JUDGE ADDL SMALL CAUSES COURT MYSURU

Acts & Sections

UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 26 OF C.P.C. Section 26,

Petitioner(s)

PUTTABORAMMA @ BORAMMA

Adv. S.KUMARASWAMY

Respondent(s)

BORAIAH @ CHIKKAKONA CHIKKAIAH

K KALYANI

SRIKANTA PRASAD

PUTTA THAYAMMA

BORAPPA @ BORAIAH

KUMARA

MAHESH

JAYAMMA

LAKSHMAMMA

DRUVA

PRABHAKARA

K. RAKSHITH

K.HEMANTH

SMT. MAMATHA

AJITH MADHUGIRI NAGABHUSHAN,

SMT. RANI.K

SMT. RADHA K.S

Hearing History

Judge: 859-JUDGE ADDL SMALL CAUSES COURT MYSURU

28-03-2026

EVIDENCE

16-03-2026

EVIDENCE

07-03-2026

ISSUES

27-02-2026

ISSUES

20-02-2026

ISSUES

Interim Orders

10-04-2018
Deposition
04-06-2018
Deposition
20-02-2020
Orders
25-09-2020
Orders
06-04-2023
Orders

Summary: The court allowed the plaintiff's application (I.A. No. 27) to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to include additional ancestral property (1 acre 1 guntas) that was recently discovered to have been mutated in the defendant's name. The court found that the amendment would not change the nature of the partition suit and would cause no prejudice to defendants. The application was granted with a cost of Rs. 500, and the case was adjourned to 09.06.2023 for carrying out the amendment and furnishing the amended plaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court allowed the plaintiff's application (I.A. No. 27) to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to include additional ancestral property (1 acre 1 guntas) that was recently discovered to have been mutated in the defendant's name. The court found that the amendment would not change the nature of the partition suit and would cause no prejudice to defendants. The application was granted with a cost of Rs. 500, and the case was adjourned to 09.06.2023 for carrying out the amendment and furnishing the amended plaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case