Ambigara Basappa S/o Late Ambigara Hanumanthappa vs Ambigara Ramappa S/o Late Ballappa — 235/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O,VII,RULE,1AND2. Status: Evidence-C. Next hearing: 21st April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAVN300022932025
Filing Number
234/2025
Filing Date
06-Nov-2025
Registration No
235/2025
Registration Date
06-Nov-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI
Judge
584-CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
Last updated 13-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ambigara Basappa S/o Late Ambigara Hanumanthappa
Adv. K. SUJATHA
Respondent(s)
-
1.Ambigara Ramappa S/o Late Ballappa
-
2.Ambigara Eshappa S/o. Late Ballappa
-
3.Geeresha S/o. Ambigara Eshappa
-
4.Raghavendra S/o. Ambigara Ramappa
-
5.Karnesha S/o. Ambigara Ramappa
-
6.Appanna S/o Eshappa
-
7.Balappa S/o. Ambigara Ramappa
-
8.Kariyappa S/o. Ramappa
Case History
-
21-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Evidence-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
19-Feb-2026
Evidence-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
19-Jan-2026
OrdersView PDF
Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application (I.A. No. III) seeking temporary injunction to restrain defendants from further construction on a disputed property. The judge found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as he could not produce documents proving his possession and exact boundaries of the property in question. Additionally, the application was barred by the principle of res judicata, since an earlier identical application (I.A. No. II) had been dismissed on December 10, 2025, and the plaintiff had not challenged that order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-Jan-2026
Written Statements/Objection To Main Petition-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
17-Jan-2026
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
14-Jan-2026
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
09-Jan-2026
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
07-Jan-2026
Hearing
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
06-Jan-2026
Hearing
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
03-Jan-2026
For Objection/Counter To Main Petition(cr)
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
18-Dec-2025
For Objection/Counter To Main Petition(cr)
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
12-Dec-2025
Written Statements/Objection To Main Petition-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
10-Dec-2025
OrdersView PDF
-
10-Dec-2025
Written Statements/Objection To Main Petition-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
08-Dec-2025
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
06-Dec-2025
Hearing
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
05-Dec-2025
Summons/Warrant To The Accused/Notice(cr)
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
28-Nov-2025
Summons/Warrant To The Accused/Notice(cr)
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
10-Nov-2025
Summons/Warrant To The Accused/Notice(cr)
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
07-Nov-2025
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hagaribommanahalli Vijayanagara District
-
06-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 235/2025
Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application (I.A. No. III) seeking temporary injunction to restrain defendants from further construction on a disputed property. The judge found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as he could not produce documents proving his possession and exact boundaries of the property in question. Additionally, the application was barred by the principle of res judicata, since an earlier identical application (I.A. No. II) had been dismissed on December 10, 2025, and the plaintiff had not challenged that order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts