Rukma Ramu Esappanavar vs D1. Savakka Virupakshappa Esappanavar — 150/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Sec.26,R/w.Order.7,Rule.1. Status: Summons. Next hearing: 30th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK810017582025
Filing Number
153/2025
Filing Date
19-Dec-2025
Registration No
150/2025
Registration Date
19-Dec-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUNDGOD
Judge
530-CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Mundgod
Last updated 19-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Rukma Ramu Esappanavar
Adv. Pramod Hegde
Respondent(s)
-
1.D1. Savakka Virupakshappa Esappanavar
-
2.D2. Virupakshappa Kedarappa Esappanavar
-
3.D3. Manjunath Virupakshappa Esappanavar
-
4.D4. Annappa Virupakshappa Esappanavar
Case History
-
30-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
18-Mar-2026
OrdersView PDF
SUMMARY: The Civil Judge of Mundgod dismissed the plaintiff's interim application (I.A. No. I) seeking to restrain defendants from constructing a wall on the disputed property. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, that balance of convenience favored the defendants, and that dismissal would not cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff. Costs were made easy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Summons
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Mundgod
-
17-Mar-2026
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Mundgod
-
16-Mar-2026
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Mundgod
-
10-Mar-2026
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Mundgod
-
06-Mar-2026
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Mundgod
-
04-Mar-2026
Hearing
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Mundgod
-
26-Feb-2026
Hearing
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Mundgod
-
28-Jan-2026
Summons
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Mundgod
-
19-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 150/2025
SUMMARY: The Civil Judge of Mundgod dismissed the plaintiff's interim application (I.A. No. I) seeking to restrain defendants from constructing a wall on the disputed property. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, that balance of convenience favored the defendants, and that dismissal would not cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff. Costs were made easy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts