NARAYANAGOWDA vs GOWRAMMA — 255/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/S 7, R-1, OF CPC. Disposed: Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAMS410010252025

Filing Number

256/2025

Filing Date

03-Jun-2025

Registration No

255/2025

Registration Date

05-Jun-2025

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJANAGARA

Judge

444-Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Krishnarajanagar

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/S 7, R-1, OF CPC

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NARAYANAGOWDA

    Adv. JAYARAMEGOWDA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GOWRAMMA

  2. 2.KUMARI

  3. 3.MANJULA

  4. 4.KRISHNEGOWDA

  5. 5.YOGESHA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    In Case 255/2025, the Lok-Adalath (held 14/03/2026) dismissed the suit filed by petitioner Narayanagowda against respondents Gowramma, Kumari, and Manjula as "Not pressed" following a memo filed by the petitioner's advocate. The court ordered the office to return the court fee as permissible under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Krishnarajanagar

  4. 08-Jan-2026

    Compromise

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Krishnarajanagar

  5. 27-Nov-2025

    Objection

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Krishnarajanagar

  6. 27-Sep-2025

    Notice

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Krishnarajanagar

  7. 28-Jul-2025

    Written Statement

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Krishnarajanagar

  8. 06-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 03-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 255/2025

casestatus.in Summary

In Case 255/2025, the Lok-Adalath (held 14/03/2026) dismissed the suit filed by petitioner Narayanagowda against respondents Gowramma, Kumari, and Manjula as "Not pressed" following a memo filed by the petitioner's advocate. The court ordered the office to return the court fee as permissible under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case