Rama Timma Naik 50 years Manikyanagoli Keremane Siddapur vs Parwati Kom Ganapa Naik 67 years Manikyanagoli Keremane Siddapur Advocate - SRI. JAYARAM GANESH HEGDE — 10/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 54 R/W 20R18. Status: AWAIT REPORT. Next hearing: 25th April 2026.
FDP - FINAL DECREE PROCEEDINGS
CNR: KAUK910014222016
Next Hearing
25th April 2026
Filing Number
10/2016
Filing Date
14-12-2016
Registration No
10/2016
Registration Date
14-12-2016
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDDAPUR
Judge
531-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and JMFC SIDDAPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rama Timma Naik 50 years Manikyanagoli Keremane Siddapur
Adv. Sri. N. R. Naik Advocate
Respondent(s)
Parwati Kom Ganapa Naik 67 years Manikyanagoli Keremane Siddapur Advocate - SRI. JAYARAM GANESH HEGDE
Manjunath Ganapa Naik Manikyanagoli Keremane Siddapur
Adv. SRI. JAYARAM GANESH HEGDE
Prakash Ganapa Naik, Manikyanagoli Keremane Siddapur
Adv. SRI. JAYARAM GANESH HEGDE
Timmappa Ganapa Naik Manikyanagoli Keremane Siddapur
Adv. SRI. JAYARAM GANESH HEGDE
Saroja Krishna Naik Nagolli Basavanabail Siddapur
Adv. SRI. JAYARAM GANESH HEGDE
Hearing History
Judge: 531-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and JMFC SIDDAPUR
AWAIT REPORT
AWAIT REPORT
AWAIT REPORT
AWAIT REPORT
AWAIT REPORT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | AWAIT REPORT |
| 16-02-2026 | AWAIT REPORT |
| 30-01-2026 | AWAIT REPORT |
| 05-01-2026 | AWAIT REPORT |
| 15-12-2025 | AWAIT REPORT |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed Interlocutory Application No. III filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, permitting the impleadment of proposed petitioners No. 2 to 11 as necessary parties to the proceedings. The court found that these parties, who belonged to the same family and had 1/3rd share in the suit properties, were essential to effectively adjudicate the partition and possession dispute. The petitioner was directed to amend the petition and furnish the amended version forthwith. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed Interlocutory Application No. III filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, permitting the impleadment of proposed petitioners No. 2 to 11 as necessary parties to the proceedings. The court found that these parties, who belonged to the same family and had 1/3rd share in the suit properties, were essential to effectively adjudicate the partition and possession dispute. The petitioner was directed to amend the petition and furnish the amended version forthwith. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts