B M Krishnegowda vs Panchayath Development Officer — 5/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 26th March 2026.
R.A. - Regular Appeals
CNR: KARN210000692020
Filing Number
5/2020
Filing Date
30-Jan-2020
Registration No
5/2020
Registration Date
31-Jan-2020
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA
Judge
1564-Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
Decision Date
26-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Last updated 14-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.B M Krishnegowda
Adv. SUNIL RAJE URS
Respondent(s)
-
1.Panchayath Development Officer
-
2.Assistant Director
-
3.B.T Shivamallegowda
-
4.Shankara
-
5.Krishna
-
6.Raju
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-Mar-2026
Judgment
Case Summary: B M Krishnegowda v. Panchayath Development Officer (R.A./5/2020) The appellate court dismissed B M Krishnegowda's appeal against the trial court's dismissal of his suit. Krishnegowda had contracted a lake for fishery operations (2014-2019) and sought injunction against defendants for allegedly illegally extracting water, causing loss to his fishery business. The court found the suit infructuous as the contract period had expired by the judgment date (23.09.2019), and held that Krishnegowda failed to prove illegal water extraction—his complaint lacked specific details identifying the perpetrators, and oral evidence proved insufficient without supporting documentation or police complaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
11-Mar-2026
Judgments
Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
10-Mar-2026
Arguments
Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
11-Feb-2026
Judgments
Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
10-Feb-2026
Arguments
Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
12-Jan-2026
Arguments
Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
22-Sep-2025
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
02-Jul-2025
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
24-Feb-2025
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
09-Dec-2024
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
11-Sep-2024
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
12-Jun-2024
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
07-Feb-2024
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
11-Oct-2023
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
21-Aug-2023
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
26-Jun-2023
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
27-Mar-2023
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
18-Jan-2023
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
07-Nov-2022
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
10-Aug-2022
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
30-May-2022
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
07-Feb-2022
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
29-Nov-2021
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
27-Sep-2021
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
27-Jul-2021
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
21-Jun-2021
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
09-Apr-2021
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
17-Feb-2021
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
14-Dec-2020
Arguments
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
06-Oct-2020
Call for Lcr
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
19-Aug-2020
Summons
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
16-Jun-2020
Summons
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
08-Apr-2020
Summons
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
31-Jan-2020
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Jan-2020
Case filed
Registration No. 5/2020
Case Summary: B M Krishnegowda v. Panchayath Development Officer (R.A./5/2020) The appellate court dismissed B M Krishnegowda's appeal against the trial court's dismissal of his suit. Krishnegowda had contracted a lake for fishery operations (2014-2019) and sought injunction against defendants for allegedly illegally extracting water, causing loss to his fishery business. The court found the suit infructuous as the contract period had expired by the judgment date (23.09.2019), and held that Krishnegowda failed to prove illegal water extraction—his complaint lacked specific details identifying the perpetrators, and oral evidence proved insufficient without supporting documentation or police complaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts