B Siddappa S/o Late Kodi Basappa vs T Bheemaka @ Bheemavva W/o Late T Shivakumara — 147/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7,1,2. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAVN200014852024

Filing Number

147/2024

Filing Date

12-Aug-2024

Registration No

147/2024

Registration Date

12-Aug-2024

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KUDLIGI

Judge

174-Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 12-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 7,1,2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.B Siddappa S/o Late Kodi Basappa

    Adv. Jayaram Nagaraja

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.T Bheemaka @ Bheemavva W/o Late T Shivakumara

  2. 2.Phaniraja S/o Late T Shivakumara minor, R/by his natural guardian i.e., Defendant No.1

  3. 3.Vamshi S/o Late T Shivakumar, Minor, R/by his natural guardian i.e., Defendant No.1

  4. 4.Dharani D/o Late T Shivakumara, minor, R/by her natural Guardian, i.e., Defendant No.1

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Senior Civil Judge of Kudligi dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 6,90,000/- on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, finding that the loan transaction was purely commercial in nature. Although the court found the plaintiff had proven the loan was borrowed by the deceased T. Shivakumar and that a cheque was issued that bounced due to insufficient funds, it held that under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, civil courts lack jurisdiction over commercial disputes exceeding Rs. 3,00,000. The court directed the plaintiff to file the case before the Commercial Court instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Judgment/Final Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  6. 24-Jan-2026

    Evidence-C

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  7. 19-Dec-2025

    Evidence-C

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  8. 06-Nov-2025

    IssueView PDF

  9. 06-Nov-2025

    Evidence-C

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  10. 11-Sep-2025

    Issues-C

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  11. 16-Jul-2025

    Summons/Warrant To The Accused/Notice(cr)

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  12. 17-Apr-2025

    Summons/Warrant To The Accused/Notice(cr)

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  13. 05-Mar-2025

    Summons/Warrant To The Accused/Notice(cr)

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  14. 13-Feb-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  15. 13-Feb-2025

    Summons/Warrant To The Accused/Notice(cr)

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  16. 19-Dec-2024

    Summons/Warrant To The Accused/Notice(cr)

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  17. 25-Sep-2024

    Summons/Warrant To The Accused/Notice(cr)

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District

  18. 12-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  19. 12-Aug-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 147/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Senior Civil Judge of Kudligi dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 6,90,000/- on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, finding that the loan transaction was purely commercial in nature. Although the court found the plaintiff had proven the loan was borrowed by the deceased T. Shivakumar and that a cheque was issued that bounced due to insufficient funds, it held that under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, civil courts lack jurisdiction over commercial disputes exceeding Rs. 3,00,000. The court directed the plaintiff to file the case before the Commercial Court instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case