Lokeshwar K.A S/o Anandu Lingappa Naik, Age 69 Years, R/o Prabhat Nagar, Honavar vs Ganapi Kom Anand Naik, Age 88 Years, R/o, Areangadi paiki, Hosakuli Village, Tq-Honavar — 40/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/Sec. 26, U/O 7, Rule 1. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 21st April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK610004122023
Next Hearing
21st April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
40/2023
Filing Date
05-10-2023
Registration No
40/2023
Registration Date
05-10-2023
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONAVAR
Judge
526-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC HONAVARA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lokeshwar K.A S/o Anandu Lingappa Naik, Age 69 Years, R/o Prabhat Nagar, Honavar
Adv. Satish Shivaram Bhat
Respondent(s)
Ganapi Kom Anand Naik, Age 88 Years, R/o, Areangadi paiki, Hosakuli Village, Tq-Honavar
Pushpalata Narayan Karki, Age 63 Years, R/o, Areangadi paiki, Hosakuli Village, Tq-Honavar
Adv. Gopalkrishna Parameshwar Hegde
Venkatesh Anandu Kademane, Age 65 Years, R/o Prince Nagar, Sirsi.
Adv. Gajanan Ganapati Bhat
Dheeraj Venkatesh Kademane, Age 24 Years, R/o Prince Nagar, Sirsi.
Adv. Gajanan Ganapati Bhat
Guruprasad Narayan Sharavati, Age 35 Years, R/o Arengadi Paiki, Hosakuvi village
Ullasa Govind Naik, Age 45 Years, R/o Shanti Nagar, Honavar.
Adv. Manjunath Lokeshwar Naik
Hearing History
Judge: 526-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC HONAVARA
ARGUMENTS
NOTICE
EVIDENCE
ORDER
ORDER
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 17-03-2026 | NOTICE | |
| 07-03-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 21-02-2026 | ORDER | |
| 11-02-2026 | ORDER |
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed Interim Application (IA) No. XI filed by Defendant No. 5 with costs of Rs. 1,000. The defendant had sought permission to amend the plaintiff's plaint by adding two additional properties to the suit schedule, claiming they were joint family properties. The court held that under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC, only a party can amend its own pleadings, not the pleadings of the opposing party, and therefore the application was devoid of merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed Interim Application (IA) No. XI filed by Defendant No. 5 with costs of Rs. 1,000. The defendant had sought permission to amend the plaintiff's plaint by adding two additional properties to the suit schedule, claiming they were joint family properties. The court held that under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC, only a party can amend its own pleadings, not the pleadings of the opposing party, and therefore the application was devoid of merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts