B.R SHIVANANDASWAMY vs MADHUCHANDRA — 238/2024
Case under Under Order 21 Rule 2 of Cpc. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 07th March 2026.
EX - Execution Petition Under Order
CNR: KAMS080035462024
Filing Number
239/2024
Filing Date
24-Aug-2024
Registration No
238/2024
Registration Date
29-Aug-2024
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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.B.R SHIVANANDASWAMY
Adv. K.N. NAGABHUSHAN
Respondent(s)
-
1.MADHUCHANDRA
-
2.M YASHODHA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Mar-2026
OrdersView PDF
The Principal Judge of the Court of SC & MACT, Mysuru dismissed the execution petition (Ex 238/2024) for non-prosecution, finding that the judgment debtor (DHr) failed to ensure warrant execution despite multiple opportunities and adequate time. The court held that mere payment of provident fund without taking active steps or providing assistance for warrant execution demonstrated lack of due diligence, warranting dismissal under CPC Order 17 Rules 2-3 and Section 9. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
23-Jan-2026
Notice
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
06-Dec-2025
Notice
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
07-Nov-2025
Notice
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
19-Aug-2025
Notice
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
24-Jun-2025
Notice
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
09-Jun-2025
Notice
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
15-Apr-2025
Notice
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
07-Mar-2025
Notice
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
22-Feb-2025
Notice
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
13-Dec-2024
Notice
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
26-Oct-2024
Notice
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
19-Oct-2024
Notice
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
30-Aug-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Aug-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 238/2024
The Principal Judge of the Court of SC & MACT, Mysuru dismissed the execution petition (Ex 238/2024) for non-prosecution, finding that the judgment debtor (DHr) failed to ensure warrant execution despite multiple opportunities and adequate time. The court held that mere payment of provident fund without taking active steps or providing assistance for warrant execution demonstrated lack of due diligence, warranting dismissal under CPC Order 17 Rules 2-3 and Section 9. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts