M R Govindraju vs Anjanmurthy Advocate - SANGAMESHA B. — 49/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7,R1,of,CPC. Status: FOR OBJECTION. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KARN410000822019
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
Filing Number
47/2019
Filing Date
25-02-2019
Registration No
49/2019
Registration Date
25-02-2019
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI
Judge
1029-PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M R Govindraju
Adv. RAJAIAH
Respondent(s)
Anjanmurthy Advocate - SANGAMESHA B.
Siddhalakshamma
Adv. HIRIYANNA T.K
Hanumantharayappa
Adv. HIRIYANNA T.K
Raju
Adv. HIRIYANNA T.K
Hearing History
Judge: 1029-PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
FOR OBJECTION
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | FOR OBJECTION |
| 18-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 12-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 16-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 05-11-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 49/2019 Case ordered on 23.01.2025: The court reviewed the petitioner's arguments regarding Section 5 and Section 4 matters, examining documentary evidence and affidavits. The court found that issues raised in Section 5 also relate to Section 1, and directed the petitioner's counsel to file relevant written submissions. The court examined the respondents' (Anjanmurthy Advocate, Sangamesha B., Siddhalakshamma, and Hanumantharayappa) counter-arguments. After considering both parties' contentions regarding professional conduct, fee disputes, and procedural objections raised since 24.09.2015, the petition was dismissed, with the court finding no substantive grounds for the relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 49/2019 Case ordered on 23.01.2025: The court reviewed the petitioner's arguments regarding Section 5 and Section 4 matters, examining documentary evidence and affidavits. The court found that issues raised in Section 5 also relate to Section 1, and directed the petitioner's counsel to file relevant written submissions. The court examined the respondents' (Anjanmurthy Advocate, Sangamesha B., Siddhalakshamma, and Hanumantharayappa) counter-arguments. After considering both parties' contentions regarding professional conduct, fee disputes, and procedural objections raised since 24.09.2015, the petition was dismissed, with the court finding no substantive grounds for the relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts