CHIKKALAMMA vs ERAMMA Advocate - K. CHANDRASHEKAR — 241/2016

Case under Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc Section O. Status: OBJECTIONS. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAMS210008102016

OBJECTIONS

Next Hearing

10th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

241/2016

Filing Date

11-08-2016

Registration No

241/2016

Registration Date

12-08-2016

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H.D.KOTE

Judge

445-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC H D KOTE

Acts & Sections

order 7 rule 1 of CPC Section O

Petitioner(s)

CHIKKALAMMA

Adv. N.RAMANATHA

MAHADEVAMMA

CHIKKAMANI

Respondent(s)

ERAMMA Advocate - K. CHANDRASHEKAR

CHIKKAMMA

Adv. K. CHANDRASHEKAR

GOVINDANAYAKA

Adv. K. CHANDRASHEKAR

DEVAMANI

Adv. K. CHANDRASHEKAR

THIMMAMMA

DODDAMMA

Hearing History

Judge: 445-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC H D KOTE

24-03-2026

OBJECTIONS

16-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

09-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

07-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

26-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

Interim Orders

13-01-2023
Deposition
04-06-2022
Issue
24-10-2024
Deposition
15-02-2025
Orders

Summary: The application (IA No.II/2025) filed by Plaintiff No.3 seeking permission to implead Smt. Chikkamannamma as Defendant No.7 in a partition suit has been dismissed. The Civil Judge held that the application was filed belatedly—over 7 years after the original suit was filed in 2016 and after evidence had been completed—suggesting an intention to delay proceedings rather than serve justice, and therefore did not meet the requirements for adding a necessary party at that advanced stage of litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The application (IA No.II/2025) filed by Plaintiff No.3 seeking permission to implead Smt. Chikkamannamma as Defendant No.7 in a partition suit has been dismissed. The Civil Judge held that the application was filed belatedly—over 7 years after the original suit was filed in 2016 and after evidence had been completed—suggesting an intention to delay proceedings rather than serve justice, and therefore did not meet the requirements for adding a necessary party at that advanced stage of litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H.D.KOTE All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case