PUNITH vs SHIVANNA Advocate - EXPARTE — 99/2019
Case under Under Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 Cpc Section UO7R1CPC. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 01st April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS610008942019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
98/2019
Filing Date
28-03-2019
Registration No
99/2019
Registration Date
03-04-2019
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA
Judge
452-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PIRIYAPATNA
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PUNITH
Adv. K A MAHADEVAPPA
SHIVAKUMAR
Adv. K A MAHADEVAPPA
Respondent(s)
SHIVANNA Advocate - EXPARTE
RAJAPPA
Adv. EXPARTE
GIRIJAMMA
Adv. GANESHA C G
NAGARATHNA
Adv. GANESHA C G
RAJASHEKARA
Adv. EXPARTE
SHIVAMURTHY
Adv. EXPARTE
SHIVAKUMAR
Adv. EXPARTE
BASAVARAJU
Adv. EXPARTE
MANJULA
Adv. EXPARTE
Hearing History
Judge: 452-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PIRIYAPATNA
Disposed
JUDGMENTS
ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS | |
| 07-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 13-01-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 12-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral joint family properties. The key reasoning was that the plaintiff's sole witness failed to appear for cross-examination despite multiple opportunities, and the court held that pleadings alone cannot prove a case—evidence is required. The judge applied established legal principles that a party refusing cross-examination creates a presumption against their credibility, and the plaintiffs therefore failed to prove the properties were joint family assets. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral joint family properties. The key reasoning was that the plaintiff's sole witness failed to appear for cross-examination despite multiple opportunities, and the court held that pleadings alone cannot prove a case—evidence is required. The judge applied established legal principles that a party refusing cross-examination creates a presumption against their credibility, and the plaintiffs therefore failed to prove the properties were joint family assets. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts