M/s Veritas Finance Private Limited vs Mogalappa S/o Gejjalappa, Age 51 Yrs, Occ Agri and Business — 161/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/o,21,Rule,11,of,CPC. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE on 02nd May 2026.
EX - Execution Petition Under Order
CNR: KAYG010019802025
Filing Number
211/2025
Filing Date
09-Oct-2025
Registration No
161/2025
Registration Date
27-Oct-2025
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR
Judge
936-Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir
Decision Date
02-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.M/s Veritas Finance Private Limited
Adv. GOPAL.B.NAIK
Respondent(s)
-
1.Mogalappa S/o Gejjalappa, Age 51 Yrs, Occ Agri and Business
-
2.Nagamma w/o Mogalappa, Age 46 Yrs, Occ Agri and household
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-May-2026
OrdersView PDF
The District and Sessions Court, Yadgir closed the case (Execution Petition) against respondents Mogalappa and Nagamma for default on May 2, 2026. Despite being given reasonable opportunity over one year, the Defaulter in Harassment Relief (DHR) failed to take effective steps, leading the court to dispose of the execution petition otherwise due to non-prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-May-2026
Disposed
Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir
-
24-Apr-2026
Summons
Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir
-
26-Mar-2026
A.D.R.-CIVIL
Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir
-
13-Mar-2026
Summons
Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir
-
27-Feb-2026
Arguments-CIVIL
Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir
-
22-Jan-2026
Objection
Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir
-
18-Dec-2025
Objection
Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir
-
31-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 161/2025
The District and Sessions Court, Yadgir closed the case (Execution Petition) against respondents Mogalappa and Nagamma for default on May 2, 2026. Despite being given reasonable opportunity over one year, the Defaulter in Harassment Relief (DHR) failed to take effective steps, leading the court to dispose of the execution petition otherwise due to non-prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts