Union Bank Of India Represented by its Branch Manager SRi. Dhamana Prasad vs M/S Sri. Boralingeshwara Shamiyana Centre — 4/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/o 7 Rule 1 of CPC. Status: EVIDENCE CIVIL. Next hearing: 03rd July 2026.

Com.O.S. - COMMERCIAL ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KARN010024482022

EVIDENCE CIVIL

Next Hearing

03rd July 2026

Filing Number

4/2022

Filing Date

08-09-2022

Registration No

4/2022

Registration Date

13-09-2022

Court

PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA

Judge

812-PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section U/o 7 Rule 1 of CPC

Petitioner(s)

Union Bank Of India Represented by its Branch Manager SRi. Dhamana Prasad

Adv. Shivashankara. A

Respondent(s)

M/S Sri. Boralingeshwara Shamiyana Centre

Hearing History

Judge: 812-PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

17-04-2026

EVIDENCE CIVIL

14-03-2026

A.D.R

31-01-2026

A.D.R

29-11-2025

EVIDENCE CIVIL

18-10-2025

EVIDENCE CIVIL

Interim Orders

05-12-2024
Deposition

Case Summary: Com OS 4/22 Date: 05.12.2024 On this date, the court heard the examination-in-chief of Petitioner's Witness 1 (PW1). The witness testified and affirmed the contents of their affidavit as truthful. The witness presented 24 documentary exhibits including loan agreements, promissory notes, demand notices, and delivery letters dated between 2015-2022, which were marked as exhibits. The respondents and their counsel were absent; consequently, the cross-examination was postponed. The court adjourned the case for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Com OS 4/22 Date: 05.12.2024 On this date, the court heard the examination-in-chief of Petitioner's Witness 1 (PW1). The witness testified and affirmed the contents of their affidavit as truthful. The witness presented 24 documentary exhibits including loan agreements, promissory notes, demand notices, and delivery letters dated between 2015-2022, which were marked as exhibits. The respondents and their counsel were absent; consequently, the cross-examination was postponed. The court adjourned the case for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case