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
Next Hearing
30th April 2026
Filing Number
153/2025
Filing Date
19-12-2025
Registration No
150/2025
Registration Date
19-12-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUNDGOD
Judge
530-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT MUNDGOD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rukma Ramu Esappanavar
Adv. Pramod Hegde
Respondent(s)
D1. Savakka Virupakshappa Esappanavar
D2. Virupakshappa Kedarappa Esappanavar
D3. Manjunath Virupakshappa Esappanavar
D4. Annappa Virupakshappa Esappanavar
Hearing History
Judge: 530-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT MUNDGOD
SUMMONS
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 17-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 16-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 10-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 06-03-2026 | ORDERS |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts