Basamma W/o Naganna Kambar, Age 70 Yrs, Occ House hold vs Bassanna S/o Marlingappa, Age 50 Yrs, Occ Mason, Since deceased through LRs — 183/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/o,41,Rule,20,R/w,Sec,151,of,CPC. Status: Arguments-CIVIL. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.

Arguments-CIVIL Next hearing 24-Apr-2026

Misc - Miscellaneous Cases

CNR: KAYG010016572023

Filing Number

183/2023

Filing Date

07-Oct-2023

Registration No

183/2023

Registration Date

09-Oct-2023

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR

Judge

936-Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

Last updated 08-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/o,41,Rule,20,R/w,Sec,151,of,CPC

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Basamma W/o Naganna Kambar, Age 70 Yrs, Occ House hold

    Adv. K.N. TIMMAPURI

  2. 2.Rachappa S/o Naganna Kambar, Age 55 Yrs, Occ Agriculture

  3. 3.Mallikarjun S/o Naganna Kambar, Age 46 Yrs, Occ Agriculture

  4. 4.Khandappa S/o Naganna Kambar, Age 43 Yrs, Occ Agriculture

  5. 5.Basalingappa S/o Naganna Kambar, Age 46 Yrs, Occ Agriculture

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Bassanna S/o Marlingappa, Age 50 Yrs, Occ Mason, Since deceased through LRs

  2. 2.Sharanappa S/o Marlingappa, Age 45 Yrs, Occ Labour

  3. 3.Monappa S/o Marlingappa, Age 42 Yrs, Occ Labour

  4. 4.Madhu S/o Mahadevappa, Age 50 Yrs, Occ Nil(Legal Heir)

  5. 5.Rajendra S/o Mahaveppa, Age 30 Yrs, Occ Labour

  6. 6.Suresh S/o Mahaveppa, Age 35 Yrs, Occ Labour

  7. 7.Gopalayya S/o Yellayya Bhalachekkar, Age 30 Yrs, Occ Nil

  8. 8.K.B. Bharti W/o K.B. Govardhan, Age 30 Yrs, Occ Nil

  9. 9.K.B. Govardhan S/o B. Ramkrishnayyal, Age 45 Yrs, Occ Agriculture

Case History

  1. 24-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    Arguments-CIVIL

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Summary: The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir, allowed I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by condoning a 95-day delay in filing the miscellaneous petition. The court accepted the appellants' (Basamma & 4 others) explanation that financial difficulties and lack of knowledge caused the delay, finding sufficient grounds to excuse the late filing. Rejecting the respondents' objections, the court determined that dismissing the application would cause irreparable loss to the petitioners' right to have their restoration petition heard. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Arguments-CIVIL

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Orders-CIVIL

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  6. 20-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  7. 24-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  8. 17-Dec-2025

    Objection

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  9. 20-Nov-2025

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  10. 14-Oct-2025

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  11. 18-Aug-2025

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  12. 17-Jul-2025

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  13. 19-Apr-2025

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  14. 14-Mar-2025

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  15. 22-Jan-2025

    Notice

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  16. 20-Dec-2024

    Notice

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  17. 24-Sep-2024

    Notice

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  18. 17-Aug-2024

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  19. 19-Jul-2024

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  20. 18-Apr-2024

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  21. 06-Mar-2024

    Notice

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  22. 11-Oct-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 07-Oct-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 183/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir, allowed I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by condoning a 95-day delay in filing the miscellaneous petition. The court accepted the appellants' (Basamma & 4 others) explanation that financial difficulties and lack of knowledge caused the delay, finding sufficient grounds to excuse the late filing. Rejecting the respondents' objections, the court determined that dismissing the application would cause irreparable loss to the petitioners' right to have their restoration petition heard. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case