R P Venkatagirigowda vs Divisional Controller Advocate - HARISH H.S — 215/2022

Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1989. Status: Evidence.. Next hearing: 16th July 2026.

Evidence. Next hearing 16-Jul-2026 this date has passed

M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.

CNR: KARN210008412022

Filing Number

215/2022

Filing Date

17-Jun-2022

Registration No

215/2022

Registration Date

17-Jun-2022

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA

Judge

1564-Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Last updated 14-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1989

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.R P Venkatagirigowda

    Adv. H.KRISHNEGOWDA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Divisional Controller Advocate - HARISH H.S

Case History

  1. 16-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    Evidence.

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  3. 19-May-2026

    Evidence.

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Evidence.

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 26-Mar-2026

    Evidence.

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Objection

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Objection

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  8. 05-Feb-2026

    Evidence.

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 24-Jan-2026

    Evidence.

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  10. 24-Dec-2025

    Evidence.

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 20-Nov-2025

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 09-Oct-2025

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 31-Jul-2025

    Deposition

    In case MVC.No.215/2022, on 31.07.2025, the court examined the first witness (PW-1) after administering oath. The petitioner's counsel argued that all matters stated in the witness statement were truthful and requested they be considered as evidence. Six documentary exhibits were marked as PW-1 through PW-6, including injury reports, medical bills, and other relevant documents. The case was adjourned for further hearing after the respondent sought time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  14. 31-Jul-2025

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 22-May-2025

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 20-Feb-2025

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 28-Nov-2024

    Issue

  18. 28-Nov-2024

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 19-Sep-2024

    Issues.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  20. 19-Jul-2024

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 15-Mar-2024

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 22-Dec-2023

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 22-Sep-2023

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 04-Aug-2023

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 22-Jun-2023

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  26. 30-Mar-2023

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  27. 23-Mar-2023

    Written Statement

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  28. 23-Feb-2023

    Written Statement

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  29. 28-Dec-2022

    Written Statement

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  30. 17-Nov-2022

    Written Statement

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  31. 06-Oct-2022

    Written Statement

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  32. 20-Jun-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 17-Jun-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 215/2022

casestatus.in Summary

In case MVC.No.215/2022, on 31.07.2025, the court examined the first witness (PW-1) after administering oath. The petitioner's counsel argued that all matters stated in the witness statement were truthful and requested they be considered as evidence. Six documentary exhibits were marked as PW-1 through PW-6, including injury reports, medical bills, and other relevant documents. The case was adjourned for further hearing after the respondent sought time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case