DIVYA SAMAJA NIRMANA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED vs NAGESH B N — 76/2025

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

Case disposed

EX - Execution Petition Under Order

CNR: KAMS080005522025

Filing Number

81/2025

Filing Date

12-Feb-2025

Registration No

76/2025

Registration Date

12-Feb-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.DIVYA SAMAJA NIRMANA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED

    Adv. Gnanesh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NAGESH B N

  2. 2.ARUNA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary The Principal Judge of the District Court, Mysuru, dismissed an execution petition for non-prosecution under CPC Order 17 Rules 2-3 and Section 9. The court found that despite multiple opportunities and sufficient notice, the Defendant/Respondent (DHr) failed to execute the warrant and demonstrated lack of due diligence by merely paying Provident Fund without assisting in warrant execution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  5. 07-Feb-2026

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  6. 06-Dec-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  7. 25-Sep-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  8. 28-Jun-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  9. 29-Mar-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  10. 13-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 12-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 76/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Principal Judge of the District Court, Mysuru, dismissed an execution petition for non-prosecution under CPC Order 17 Rules 2-3 and Section 9. The court found that despite multiple opportunities and sufficient notice, the Defendant/Respondent (DHr) failed to execute the warrant and demonstrated lack of due diligence by merely paying Provident Fund without assisting in warrant execution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case