SMT. GOWRAMMA vs KRISHNA — 128/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order 7 Rule 1. Status: For Amendment. Next hearing: 16th July 2026.

For Amendment Next hearing 16-Jul-2026 this date has passed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAMS300007942023

Filing Number

127/2023

Filing Date

22-Jun-2023

Registration No

128/2023

Registration Date

23-Jun-2023

Court

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUNSUR

Judge

446-Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

Last updated 15-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Order 7 Rule 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SMT. GOWRAMMA

    Adv. S.SHIVANNE GOWDA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KRISHNA

  2. 2.SMT. SUSHEELAMMA

  3. 3.BHAGYA

  4. 4.LATHA

  5. 5.ANNAIAH

  6. 6.SWAMY

  7. 7.SMT. BASAMMA

  8. 8.SMT RANI

  9. 9.DODDASHETTY

  10. 10.CHIKKADODDASHETTY

  11. 11.KRISHNASHETTY

Case History

  1. 16-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 02-Jul-2026

    For Amendment

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    For Amendment

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Case Summary: OS 128/2023 Outcome: The court allowed the application (IA No.IV) filed by three applicants seeking to be added as defendants to the suit. They were permitted to be impleaded as defendants No.12 to 14, with costs of Rs.300 imposed. Key Facts: Plaintiff Gowramma sued defendants over disputed ownership of agricultural property (8 acres 28 guntas) involving competing claims regarding land records (khata) changes and mortgages. The applicants, who had separately filed a partition suit (OS 214/2022) over the same property, sought to be made parties to this declaration and injunction suit to protect their alleged ownership interests. Court's Reasoning: Since the applicants' rights were directly involved in the disputed property and they had already initiated a partition suit with overlapping subject matter, their presence was necessary for effective adjudication. The court found them to be proper and necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 16-Apr-2026

    For Amendment

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  6. 10-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  7. 09-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  8. 04-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  9. 02-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  10. 01-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  11. 25-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  12. 11-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  13. 23-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  14. 10-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  15. 24-Jan-2026

    Orders

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  16. 13-Jan-2026

    Orders

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  17. 18-Dec-2025

    Orders

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  18. 06-Dec-2025

    Orders

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  19. 21-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  20. 06-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  21. 17-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  22. 19-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  23. 09-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  24. 01-Sep-2025

    Objection on IA

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  25. 07-Aug-2025

    Objection on IA

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  26. 17-Jul-2025

    Objection on IA

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  27. 20-Jun-2025

    Objection on IA

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  28. 09-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  29. 07-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  30. 07-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  31. 04-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  32. 03-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  33. 05-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  34. 27-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  35. 06-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  36. 25-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  37. 08-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  38. 01-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  39. 04-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  40. 29-May-2024

    Re Issue Summons

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  41. 16-Mar-2024

    Summons

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  42. 09-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  43. 15-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  44. 10-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  45. 12-Oct-2023

    For steps

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  46. 20-Sep-2023

    For steps

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  47. 10-Aug-2023

    Issue Summons

    Prl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  48. 26-Jun-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  49. 22-Jun-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 128/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS 128/2023 Outcome: The court allowed the application (IA No.IV) filed by three applicants seeking to be added as defendants to the suit. They were permitted to be impleaded as defendants No.12 to 14, with costs of Rs.300 imposed. Key Facts: Plaintiff Gowramma sued defendants over disputed ownership of agricultural property (8 acres 28 guntas) involving competing claims regarding land records (khata) changes and mortgages. The applicants, who had separately filed a partition suit (OS 214/2022) over the same property, sought to be made parties to this declaration and injunction suit to protect their alleged ownership interests. Court's Reasoning: Since the applicants' rights were directly involved in the disputed property and they had already initiated a partition suit with overlapping subject matter, their presence was necessary for effective adjudication. The court found them to be proper and necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case