MADHUMALATHI vs N. ANIL KUMAR — 153/2020
Case under Order 7 Rule 1 R/w Sec 26 of Cpc Section 1. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS500006992020
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
150/2020
Filing Date
07-12-2020
Registration No
153/2020
Registration Date
09-12-2020
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD
Judge
448-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NANJANGUD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MADHUMALATHI
Adv. K L SHREENEVASA
Respondent(s)
N. ANIL KUMAR
DR. N. NIRANJAN KUMAR
Adv. YOGEESH. B.
SUSHEELA R.
Adv. SRIKANTASWAMY. B.
R. UJWALA ALIAS USHA
S. SUKUMAR ALIAS GURUSWAMY
Adv. MRUTHUNJAYA. K.S.
VASUNDARA SUKUMAR
CHIRANJITH. A
Adv. YOGEESH. B.
GEETHA
Adv. YOGEESH. B.
LEKHA
Adv. SHANMUKHA. M.A.
K.P. VASU
Adv. SHANMUKHA. M.A.
K.P. SOMANNA
Adv. SHANMUKHA. M.A.
K.P. RAJESH
Adv. SHANMUKHA. M.A.
N.PADMAVATHI
Hearing History
Judge: 448-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NANJANGUD
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | HEARING | |
| 07-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 21-02-2026 | HEARING | |
| 11-02-2026 | HEARING | |
| 24-01-2026 | HEARING |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Senior Civil Judge of Nanjangud allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint in a partition suit by adding new properties and modifying property boundaries. The court found the plaintiff had sufficiently stated the mode of acquisition (joint family funds from theater businesses) and that the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute. The application was granted with costs of Rs. 1,000, permitting the plaintiff to proceed with the amendment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Senior Civil Judge of Nanjangud allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint in a partition suit by adding new properties and modifying property boundaries. The court found the plaintiff had sufficiently stated the mode of acquisition (joint family funds from theater businesses) and that the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute. The application was granted with costs of Rs. 1,000, permitting the plaintiff to proceed with the amendment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts