Joseph vs Tony Duming Dsouza — 41/2019
Case under Under Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 of Cpc 1908. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
R.A. - Regular Appeals
CNR: KAUK320003272019
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
39/2019
Filing Date
22-11-2019
Registration No
41/2019
Registration Date
22-11-2019
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHATKAL
Judge
1229-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BHATKAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Joseph
Adv. K. R. Naik
Respondent(s)
Tony Duming Dsouza
James Duming Dsouza
Bernard Duming Dsouza
Latisha Kom Suresh Naik
Teresa Kom Philip Dias
Apipaniya Kom Venkatesh
Smt. Juliyana Kom Duming Dsouza
Shankar s/o Narayan Bhatrahitlu
Hearing History
Judge: 1229-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BHATKAL
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 13-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 13-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 09-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 21-11-2025 | ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Joseph v. Tony Duming Dsouza (41/2019) Order Date: 29 October 2024 Court: Senior Civil Judge, Bhatkal Outcome: Interlocutory Application (IA No. III) seeking permission to produce additional evidence DISMISSED. Joseph appealed a trial court's dismissal of his original suit (OS 34/2011) claiming declaration and injunction regarding an allegedly illegal property sale deed. In the appeal, Joseph sought to introduce documents obtained from the Land Tribunal after the trial ended. The court rejected his application, finding he failed to establish that the documents were unknown to him despite due diligence, as required under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC for admitting additional evidence at appellate stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Joseph v. Tony Duming Dsouza (41/2019) Order Date: 29 October 2024 Court: Senior Civil Judge, Bhatkal Outcome: Interlocutory Application (IA No. III) seeking permission to produce additional evidence DISMISSED. Joseph appealed a trial court's dismissal of his original suit (OS 34/2011) claiming declaration and injunction regarding an allegedly illegal property sale deed. In the appeal, Joseph sought to introduce documents obtained from the Land Tribunal after the trial ended. The court rejected his application, finding he failed to establish that the documents were unknown to him despite due diligence, as required under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC for admitting additional evidence at appellate stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts