GOWRAMMA vs U.P.GEETHA Advocate - RAVI SHANKAR. L.V. — 28/2019
Case under U/o 7 Rule of 1 C.p.c. Section U/O7RULE1CPC. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS400007242019
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
28/2019
Filing Date
19-06-2019
Registration No
28/2019
Registration Date
20-06-2019
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJANAGARA
Judge
922-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KRISHNARAJANAGAR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOWRAMMA
Adv. S.B.NATESH
MANI
BABY
ANNAPOORNA
C.V.MANJULA
Respondent(s)
U.P.GEETHA Advocate - RAVI SHANKAR. L.V.
C.S.JEEVAN KUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 922-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KRISHNARAJANAGAR
EVIDENCE
ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 25-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 19-02-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 09-02-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 23-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the defendant No. 1's application (IA No. XIV) seeking rejection of the plaint for lack of cause of action and on grounds that partial partition is not maintainable. The court found that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action, as the plaintiffs adequately stated they requested partition of their legitimate share and the defendants refused. The court also held that under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, a plaint can only be rejected as a whole, not in part, making the defendant's application itself unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the defendant No. 1's application (IA No. XIV) seeking rejection of the plaint for lack of cause of action and on grounds that partial partition is not maintainable. The court found that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action, as the plaintiffs adequately stated they requested partition of their legitimate share and the defendants refused. The court also held that under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, a plaint can only be rejected as a whole, not in part, making the defendant's application itself unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts