Shyamprasad S/o. Kuttappan, 61 Yrs., agril., R/o. Hallor Oni, Mundgod vs Smt. Radhamani W/o. C.R. Diwakaran, 60 Yrs., Household, H.No. 1, Ist floor, Durga Complex, Mundgod. — 39/2019
Case under U/o 7 Rule 1 R/w Sec. 26 of Cpc. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 01st August 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK810006272019
Next Hearing
01st August 2026
Filing Number
39/2019
Filing Date
05-07-2019
Registration No
39/2019
Registration Date
06-07-2019
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUNDGOD
Judge
530-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT MUNDGOD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shyamprasad S/o. Kuttappan, 61 Yrs., agril., R/o. Hallor Oni, Mundgod
Adv. Shri. Ramakanth Narayan Hegde.
Respondent(s)
Smt. Radhamani W/o. C.R. Diwakaran, 60 Yrs., Household, H.No. 1, Ist floor, Durga Complex, Mundgod.
Sri. C.R. Divakaran, 67 Yrs., Retired employee, 1st Floor, Durga Complex, MUndgod.
Hearing History
Judge: 530-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT MUNDGOD
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-06-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 16-04-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 26-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 29-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 39/2019 On 26.02.2026, the Civil Judge at Mundgod recorded the petitioner's sworn statement (PW-1). The court found that the respondents' claim of a 54 lakh rupee debt against the petitioner lacks legal basis, and the petitioner has not taken any action to recover it. The court determined that the case was filed for debt recovery purposes and dismissed the petitioner's suit accordingly. Counsel for the respondents was granted adjournment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 39/2019 On 26.02.2026, the Civil Judge at Mundgod recorded the petitioner's sworn statement (PW-1). The court found that the respondents' claim of a 54 lakh rupee debt against the petitioner lacks legal basis, and the petitioner has not taken any action to recover it. The court determined that the case was filed for debt recovery purposes and dismissed the petitioner's suit accordingly. Counsel for the respondents was granted adjournment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts