CANARA BANK vs RAJANAYAKA — 64/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section MONEYSUIT. Disposed: Uncontested--DECREED on 07th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS600004602025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
65/2025
Filing Date
02-04-2025
Registration No
64/2025
Registration Date
02-04-2025
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA
Judge
1123-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PIRIYAPATNA
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
CANARA BANK
Adv. ROHITH B.J.
Respondent(s)
RAJANAYAKA
MAHADEVAMMA
HANUMANTHA NAYAKA
YOGANAYAKA
SWAMYNAYAKA
GEETHA R
PRAKASHA
Hearing History
Judge: 1123-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PIRIYAPATNA
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 02-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 16-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 20-01-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 17-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Senior Civil Judge at Periyapatna decreed Canara Bank's suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 17,11,074/- with interest at 11.50% per annum. The court found that the defendants had borrowed agricultural crop loans and Kissan OD loans in 2015, executed necessary mortgage and security documents, and defaulted on repayment despite repeated demands. The defendants were placed ex parte for non-appearance, and the bank's documentary evidence remained unchallenged, establishing the loan obligations and default conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Senior Civil Judge at Periyapatna decreed Canara Bank's suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 17,11,074/- with interest at 11.50% per annum. The court found that the defendants had borrowed agricultural crop loans and Kissan OD loans in 2015, executed necessary mortgage and security documents, and defaulted on repayment despite repeated demands. The defendants were placed ex parte for non-appearance, and the bank's documentary evidence remained unchallenged, establishing the loan obligations and default conclusively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts