N. Chandrashekhar S/o N. Venkateshwar Rao, Age 42 Yrs, occ Agri vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer — 236/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O,21,Rule,11,of,CPC. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE on 02nd April 2026.
EX - Execution Petition Under Order
CNR: KAYG010022712025
Filing Number
239/2025
Filing Date
24-Nov-2025
Registration No
236/2025
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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.N. Chandrashekhar S/o N. Venkateshwar Rao, Age 42 Yrs, occ Agri
Adv. B.M.PATIL
Respondent(s)
-
1.The Special Land Acquisition Officer
-
2.The Deputy Commissioner Yadgiri
-
3.The Chief Engineer KBJNL Canal Zone
-
4.The Executive Engineer KBJNL SLIP Division
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Apr-2026
OrdersView PDF
The court dismissed the respondent's application seeking attachment of movables under CPC Rule 43, finding that the supporting affidavit was improperly filed—it lacked proper form, failed to identify properties, omitted EP numbers, and was unsigned by both party and counsel. The court held that the respondent had not taken necessary procedural steps against the judgment debtors, rendering the petition dismissible on technical grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Apr-2026
Disposed
I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir
-
25-Mar-2026
For Steps
I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir
-
13-Mar-2026
Objection
I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir
-
03-Mar-2026
Objection
I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir
-
24-Feb-2026
Appearance of Respondent
I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir
-
03-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 236/2025
The court dismissed the respondent's application seeking attachment of movables under CPC Rule 43, finding that the supporting affidavit was improperly filed—it lacked proper form, failed to identify properties, omitted EP numbers, and was unsigned by both party and counsel. The court held that the respondent had not taken necessary procedural steps against the judgment debtors, rendering the petition dismissible on technical grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts