S.N.Lingaraja @ Ningappa vs Smt.Sakamma — 29/2013

Case under Order 7 Rules 1 C.p.c Section 0. Status: EVIDENCE-C. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.

O.S. - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KAVN510001672013

EVIDENCE-C

Next Hearing

24th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

29/2013

Filing Date

21-01-2013

Registration No

29/2013

Registration Date

21-01-2013

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI

Judge

254-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT

Acts & Sections

ORDER 7 RULES 1 C.P.C Section 0

Petitioner(s)

S.N.Lingaraja @ Ningappa

Adv. KBR

Respondent(s)

Smt.Sakamma

Hearing History

Judge: 254-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT

02-04-2026

EVIDENCE-C

11-03-2026

EVIDENCE-C

10-03-2026

ORDERS

09-03-2026

ORDERS

07-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

Interim Orders

19-02-2015
Judgment
06-01-2015
Deposition
06-01-2015
Deposition
06-01-2015
Deposition
14-01-2015
Deposition
14-01-2015
Deposition
21-01-2019
Orders
11-03-2026
Orders

Case Summary OS No. 29/2013 - Civil Judge, Harapanahalli (11 March 2026) The defendants' application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of a court commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property was rejected with costs of ₹500. The court held that defendants failed to justify the necessity for a local inspection, as the plaintiff's title claim can be resolved through oral and documentary evidence alone, and a commission cannot be appointed at the defendants' instance when the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary OS No. 29/2013 - Civil Judge, Harapanahalli (11 March 2026) The defendants' application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of a court commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property was rejected with costs of ₹500. The court held that defendants failed to justify the necessity for a local inspection, as the plaintiff's title claim can be resolved through oral and documentary evidence alone, and a commission cannot be appointed at the defendants' instance when the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case