Vitthal Rama Pai A/a 88 yrs Agriculturist Bilagi Siddapur vs Aravind Nagesh Pai A/a 47 yrs Business Bilagi Siddapur — 25/2019

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26Order7R1. Status: OBJECTION. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAUK910002372019

OBJECTION

Next Hearing

07th April 2026

Filing Number

25/2019

Filing Date

15-03-2019

Registration No

25/2019

Registration Date

15-03-2019

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDDAPUR

Judge

531-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and JMFC SIDDAPUR

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26Order7R1

Petitioner(s)

Vitthal Rama Pai A/a 88 yrs Agriculturist Bilagi Siddapur

Adv. SRI GANAPATI SUBRAYA HEGDE

Pundaleek Vasudev Pai A/a 84 yrs Agriculturist Bilagi Siddapur

Vinayak Ramakant Pai A/a 45 yrs Agriuclutirst Bilagi Siddapur

Chakrapani Pandurang Pai A/a 61 yrs Agriculturist Bialagi Siddapur

Respondent(s)

Aravind Nagesh Pai A/a 47 yrs Business Bilagi Siddapur

Ajeet Nagesh Pai A/a 45 yrs Employee Bilagi Siddapur

Adarsh Nagesh Pai A.a 43 yrs Agriuclturist Bilagi Siddapur

Nagesh Vaman Pai A.a 78 yrs Agriculturist Bilagi Siddapur

Hearing History

Judge: 531-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and JMFC SIDDAPUR

06-03-2026

OBJECTION

20-02-2026

OBJECTION

13-02-2026

EVIDENCE

10-02-2026

EVIDENCE

30-01-2026

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

19-07-2023
Deposition
02-07-2024
Deposition
30-07-2024
Issue
09-12-2025
Deposition
13-02-2026
Deposition

Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding no merit in the claims. The court determined that the plaintiff had no valid rights to the disputed property (a 30x90 feet plot near a police station) and found that the plaintiff had filed false claims and false evidence in the case. The witness examination was completed, and the case was decided against the plaintiff based on findings that contradicted the plaintiff's submissions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding no merit in the claims. The court determined that the plaintiff had no valid rights to the disputed property (a 30x90 feet plot near a police station) and found that the plaintiff had filed false claims and false evidence in the case. The witness examination was completed, and the case was decided against the plaintiff based on findings that contradicted the plaintiff's submissions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDDAPUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case