Baslingappa S/o Marthandappa Jekker Age 52 years Occ Agril R/o. village Balichakra vs Shankrappa S/o Hanmantha Jekker Age 70 years Occ Agril. R/o village Balichakra — 2/2024
Case under Order 32 Rule 3 Cpc Section 32. Status: EVIDENCE-CIVIL. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
EX - Execution Petition Under Order
CNR: KAYG030002542024
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2/2024
Filing Date
25-01-2024
Registration No
2/2024
Registration Date
25-01-2024
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC YADGIR
Judge
334-PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,YADGIR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Baslingappa S/o Marthandappa Jekker Age 52 years Occ Agril R/o. village Balichakra
Adv. N.K.
Respondent(s)
Shankrappa S/o Hanmantha Jekker Age 70 years Occ Agril. R/o village Balichakra
Janappa S/o Shankrappa Jekker Age 42 years Occ Agril. R/o village Balichakra
Yesappa S/o Shankrappa Jekker Age 40 years Occ Agril. R/o village Balichakra
Aannd S/o Shankrappa Jekker Age 30 years Occ Agril. R/o village Balichakra
Hearing History
Judge: 334-PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,YADGIR
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL | |
| 07-03-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL | |
| 05-03-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL | |
| 25-02-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL | |
| 21-02-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
Interim Orders
Summary Case No.: EP No. 02/2024 Date: 27-03-2026 The court examined witness testimony in a civil property dispute. The petitioner claimed the respondent filed a false case in 2020 regarding ancestral property, while the respondent alleged the petitioner committed fraud. The court found the witness testimony contradictory and unreliable, and further cross-examination was deemed necessary. The case has been adjourned for continued proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary Case No.: EP No. 02/2024 Date: 27-03-2026 The court examined witness testimony in a civil property dispute. The petitioner claimed the respondent filed a false case in 2020 regarding ancestral property, while the respondent alleged the petitioner committed fraud. The court found the witness testimony contradictory and unreliable, and further cross-examination was deemed necessary. The case has been adjourned for continued proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts