Ajithkumar k s/o Brammappa vs Edigara Pakkerappa s/o Thumbappa — 28/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O.41,R.1,2. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 01st April 2026.

Case disposedSub Stage

R.A. - Regular Appeals

CNR: KAVN500019312025

e-Filing Number

28-07-2025

Filing Number

28/2025

Filing Date

25-Jul-2025

Registration No

28/2025

Registration Date

29-Jul-2025

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI

Judge

841-Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O.41,R.1,2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ajithkumar k s/o Brammappa

    Adv. SANGAPPANAVARA BASAVARAJA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Edigara Pakkerappa s/o Thumbappa

  2. 2.Smt. Edigara Laxmavva alias Sitamma w/o late Lakkappa

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: R.A.No.28/2025 Court Decision: The appellate court allowed the plaintiff's appeal and set aside the trial court's dismissal, remanding the case for fresh trial. Both parties must present evidence afresh, with the defendants now permitted to file a written statement and contest the case. Key Reasoning: While the appellate court found the trial court's judgment technically justified based on available revenue documents showing the plaintiff's continuous ownership since 1988, it determined the dismissal was essentially an ex parte decree since defendants failed to file written statements or present evidence. The court found that remanding for full trial would ensure a complete and fair adjudication without prejudicing either party. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Judgment/Final Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  5. 24-Feb-2026

    Judgment/Final Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  6. 20-Feb-2026

    For Objection/Counter To Main Petition(cr)

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  7. 11-Feb-2026

    For Objection/Counter To Main Petition(cr)

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  8. 10-Feb-2026

    For Objection/Counter To Main Petition(cr)

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  9. 03-Feb-2026

    For Objection/Counter To Main Petition(cr)

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  10. 02-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  11. 28-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  12. 20-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  13. 12-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  14. 06-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  15. 15-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  16. 08-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  17. 28-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  18. 19-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  19. 05-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  20. 16-Sep-2025

    Summons/Warrant To The Accused/Notice(cr)

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  21. 29-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 25-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 28/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.A.No.28/2025 Court Decision: The appellate court allowed the plaintiff's appeal and set aside the trial court's dismissal, remanding the case for fresh trial. Both parties must present evidence afresh, with the defendants now permitted to file a written statement and contest the case. Key Reasoning: While the appellate court found the trial court's judgment technically justified based on available revenue documents showing the plaintiff's continuous ownership since 1988, it determined the dismissal was essentially an ex parte decree since defendants failed to file written statements or present evidence. The court found that remanding for full trial would ensure a complete and fair adjudication without prejudicing either party. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case