Hanchinagudi kotresh S/o Late Hanchinagudi Devappa vs Smt. Kadlabalu Hanumanthavva W/o Late Shivappa — 101/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7,Rule,1,and,2,R/w,26. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 23rd March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAVN300009522020
Next Hearing
23rd March 2026
Filing Number
102/2020
Filing Date
01-12-2020
Registration No
101/2020
Registration Date
01-12-2020
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI
Judge
584-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Hanchinagudi kotresh S/o Late Hanchinagudi Devappa
Adv. AKKI MALIKARJUNA
Respondent(s)
Smt. Kadlabalu Hanumanthavva W/o Late Shivappa
Kadalabalu Yamunappa S/o Late Shivappa
Kadalabalu Kotresh S/o Late Shivappa
Hearing History
Judge: 584-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
HEARING
HEARING
FOR OBJECTION/COUNTER TO MAIN PETITION(CR)
FOR OBJECTION/COUNTER TO MAIN PETITION(CR)
FOR OBJECTION/COUNTER TO MAIN PETITION(CR)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 11-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 31-01-2026 | FOR OBJECTION/COUNTER TO MAIN PETITION(CR) |
| 18-12-2025 | FOR OBJECTION/COUNTER TO MAIN PETITION(CR) |
| 05-11-2025 | FOR OBJECTION/COUNTER TO MAIN PETITION(CR) |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the plaintiff's application (I.A.No.VI) to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a cost of Rs.200. The amendment sought to add paragraphs 5A and 5B detailing a 1998 family arrangement involving property division and subsequent agreement-cum-sale deed executed in favor of the plaintiff. The court found the amendment necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, did not introduce entirely new facts, and would not prejudice the defendants who retained full opportunity to contest the amended pleadings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the plaintiff's application (I.A.No.VI) to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a cost of Rs.200. The amendment sought to add paragraphs 5A and 5B detailing a 1998 family arrangement involving property division and subsequent agreement-cum-sale deed executed in favor of the plaintiff. The court found the amendment necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, did not introduce entirely new facts, and would not prejudice the defendants who retained full opportunity to contest the amended pleadings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts