Lakshminarayana S/o Ramachandra Hegde, A/a 65 yrs, R/at Mattihalli, Siddapur Taluk vs Subraya Bangareshwar Hegde, A/a 65 yrs, R/at Mattihalli, Siddapur Taluk — 64/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26R/wOrder7Rule1. Status: CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW 1. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK910007832020
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
Filing Number
64/2020
Filing Date
30-11-2020
Registration No
64/2020
Registration Date
30-11-2020
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDDAPUR
Judge
531-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and JMFC SIDDAPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lakshminarayana S/o Ramachandra Hegde, A/a 65 yrs, R/at Mattihalli, Siddapur Taluk
Adv. SRI. MANJUNATH GAJANAN HEGDE
Respondent(s)
Subraya Bangareshwar Hegde, A/a 65 yrs, R/at Mattihalli, Siddapur Taluk
Hearing History
Judge: 531-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and JMFC SIDDAPUR
CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW 1
CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW 1
CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW 1
CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW 1
CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW 1
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW 1 |
| 20-02-2026 | CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW 1 |
| 02-02-2026 | CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW 1 |
| 19-01-2026 | CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW 1 |
| 05-01-2026 | CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW 1 |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the defendant's application (I.A. No. IV) to amend the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The court found that the proposed amendment merely clarified the defendant's existing contention regarding the land exchange arrangement and was necessary to resolve the real controversy between the parties without causing injustice to the plaintiff. The amendment was permitted with cost imposed at Rs. 300. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the defendant's application (I.A. No. IV) to amend the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The court found that the proposed amendment merely clarified the defendant's existing contention regarding the land exchange arrangement and was necessary to resolve the real controversy between the parties without causing injustice to the plaintiff. The amendment was permitted with cost imposed at Rs. 300. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts