N. Chandrashekhar S/o N. Venkateshwar Rao, Age 42 yrs, Occ Agri vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer — 235/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O,21,Rule,11,of,CPC. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE on 02nd April 2026.

Case disposed

EX - Execution Petition Under Order

CNR: KAYG010022702025

Filing Number

238/2025

Filing Date

24-Nov-2025

Registration No

235/2025

Registration Date

19-Dec-2025

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR

Judge

1568-I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O,21,Rule,11,of,CPC

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.N. Chandrashekhar S/o N. Venkateshwar Rao, Age 42 yrs, Occ Agri

    Adv. B.M.PATIL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Special Land Acquisition Officer

  2. 2.The Deputy Commissioner Yadgiri

  3. 3.The Chief Engineer KBJNL Canal Zone

  4. 4.The Executive Engineer KBJNL SLIP Division

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    The court dismissed the respondent's application seeking attachment of movable properties under CPC Rule 43 due to procedural defects in the affidavit, including improper form, unsigned documents, unidentified properties, and incorrectly mentioned E.P. numbers. The judge ruled that the respondent failed to take necessary proper steps against the judgment debtors and therefore dismissed the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    For Steps

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Objection

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  6. 03-Mar-2026

    Objection

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  7. 24-Feb-2026

    Appearance of Respondent

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  8. 02-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 24-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 235/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the respondent's application seeking attachment of movable properties under CPC Rule 43 due to procedural defects in the affidavit, including improper form, unsigned documents, unidentified properties, and incorrectly mentioned E.P. numbers. The judge ruled that the respondent failed to take necessary proper steps against the judgment debtors and therefore dismissed the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case