BANK OF BARODA vs SRI JAYARAMU — 40/2024
Case under Under Order 21 Rule 2 of Cpc. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 06th June 2026.
EX - Execution Petition Under Order
CNR: KAMS080004232024
Filing Number
40/2024
Filing Date
29-01-2024
Registration No
40/2024
Registration Date
01-02-2024
Court
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU
Judge
434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
Decision Date
06th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BANK OF BARODA
Adv. P.O. ADINARAYANA
Respondent(s)
SRI JAYARAMU
SRI BABURAMAN
Hearing History
Judge: 434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
Disposed
Issue Attachment Warrant
A.D.R.
A.D.R.
Issue Attachment Warrant
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-06-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-04-2026 | Issue Attachment Warrant |
| 14-03-2026 | A.D.R. |
| 28-02-2026 | A.D.R. |
| 17-01-2026 | Issue Attachment Warrant |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed Bank of Baroda's execution petition for non-prosecution under CPC Order 17 Rules 2-3 and Section 9. The court found that despite multiple opportunities and the defendant being called for hearing, the Debtor-in-Execution (DHr) failed to take necessary steps to execute the warrant, demonstrating lack of due diligence. Mere payment of process fee without actual warrant execution efforts did not justify further adjournment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court dismissed Bank of Baroda's execution petition for non-prosecution under CPC Order 17 Rules 2-3 and Section 9. The court found that despite multiple opportunities and the defendant being called for hearing, the Debtor-in-Execution (DHr) failed to take necessary steps to execute the warrant, demonstrating lack of due diligence. Mere payment of process fee without actual warrant execution efforts did not justify further adjournment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts