SAROJA vs HEMAVATHI R. — 100/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order VII, Rule 1. Status: OBJECTIONS. Next hearing: 21st April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS500003302025
Next Hearing
21st April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
98/2025
Filing Date
05-04-2025
Registration No
100/2025
Registration Date
08-04-2025
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD
Judge
448-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NANJANGUD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SAROJA
Adv. BASAVARAJU. C.L.
Respondent(s)
HEMAVATHI R.
Hearing History
Judge: 448-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NANJANGUD
OBJECTIONS
EVIDENCE
ORDERS
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | OBJECTIONS | |
| 07-03-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 06-03-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 27-02-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 25-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY The court dismissed the application filed by Defendant Hemavathi (first defendant) seeking to transfer vehicle registration (Bharath Benz Truck KA-52-C-1732) from her deceased husband's name to her own. The court found that the defendant failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to support her claims regarding loan repayment, insurance premiums, and road tax payments, and noted that granting the transfer before trial completion could facilitate property alienation and create further litigation. The court held that such matters should be adjudicated during the main partition suit rather than through interim orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY The court dismissed the application filed by Defendant Hemavathi (first defendant) seeking to transfer vehicle registration (Bharath Benz Truck KA-52-C-1732) from her deceased husband's name to her own. The court found that the defendant failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to support her claims regarding loan repayment, insurance premiums, and road tax payments, and noted that granting the transfer before trial completion could facilitate property alienation and create further litigation. The court held that such matters should be adjudicated during the main partition suit rather than through interim orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts