M/s Prashanti Adarsha Shikshana Seva Trust Chief Trustee Radhakrishna Govinda Pai Manjain A/a78 SDP vs Vijaya W/o Chandrashekar Belikeri, A/a 55 yrs, R/at Near Prashanti School Complex Siddapur Post SDP — 42/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/sec26R/wOrder7Rule1. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK910001652024
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
Filing Number
42/2024
Filing Date
05-04-2024
Registration No
42/2024
Registration Date
05-04-2024
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDDAPUR
Judge
531-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and JMFC SIDDAPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/s Prashanti Adarsha Shikshana Seva Trust Chief Trustee Radhakrishna Govinda Pai Manjain A/a78 SDP
Adv. SRI GANAPATI SUBRAYA HEGDE
Respondent(s)
Vijaya W/o Chandrashekar Belikeri, A/a 55 yrs, R/at Near Prashanti School Complex Siddapur Post SDP
Hearing History
Judge: 531-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and JMFC SIDDAPUR
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 24-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 06-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 23-01-2026 | HEARING |
| 06-01-2026 | HEARING |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY The court rejected the defendant's application (IA No.1) seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession of property. The court held that the defendant failed to establish sufficient grounds for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, as the plaintiff had clearly stated the cause of action in the plaint. The court ruled that questions regarding limitation and the merits are mixed questions of law and fact requiring full trial evidence, and cannot be decided at the plaint rejection stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY The court rejected the defendant's application (IA No.1) seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession of property. The court held that the defendant failed to establish sufficient grounds for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, as the plaintiff had clearly stated the cause of action in the plaint. The court ruled that questions regarding limitation and the merits are mixed questions of law and fact requiring full trial evidence, and cannot be decided at the plaint rejection stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts