Kurubara Mariyappa @ Chilagodu Kurubar Mariyappa son of Late K Hanumanthappa vs Mainalli Neelama wife of Late Balappa — 36/2015

Case under Under Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 Read with Sec 26 of Cpc Section uorule7rule1and2. Status: EVIDENCE-C. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAVN300002252015

EVIDENCE-C

Next Hearing

16th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

36/2015

Filing Date

21-02-2015

Registration No

36/2015

Registration Date

21-02-2015

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI

Judge

584-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT

Acts & Sections

Under Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 read with sec 26 of CPC Section uorule7rule1and2
Sec151 CPC Section sec151cpc
Under order 39 rule 1 and 2 Section underorder39rule1and2,UO39RULE1AND2

Petitioner(s)

Kurubara Mariyappa @ Chilagodu Kurubar Mariyappa son of Late K Hanumanthappa

Adv. Sri C Basappa

Smt Gubbamma wife of latge kurubara sanna bailappa

Chilagodu kurubara Hanumanthappa

Respondent(s)

Mainalli Neelama wife of Late Balappa

Hovina Lakshmavva wife of Hanumanthppa(Legal Heir)

Hearing History

Judge: 584-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT

02-04-2026

EVIDENCE-C

18-03-2026

EVIDENCE-C

07-03-2026

EVIDENCE-C

03-03-2026

EVIDENCE-C

24-02-2026

EVIDENCE-C

Interim Orders

15-06-2018
Issue
07-03-2019
Deposition
07-01-2025
Orders

Outcome Summary: The Civil Judge & JMFC at Hagaribommanahalli allowed I.A. No. IX, permitting the plaintiffs to amend their plaint by adding property boundaries to the schedule. The court found that the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication, did not introduce new facts, and would not prejudice the defendants who retain the opportunity to file an additional written statement. The application was allowed with a cost of Rs. 500/-. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Outcome Summary: The Civil Judge & JMFC at Hagaribommanahalli allowed I.A. No. IX, permitting the plaintiffs to amend their plaint by adding property boundaries to the schedule. The court found that the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication, did not introduce new facts, and would not prejudice the defendants who retain the opportunity to file an additional written statement. The application was allowed with a cost of Rs. 500/-. 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 COURT, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case