Vishnuvardhan vs Mabusab — 27/2019
Case under Sec 302 Rw 34 of Ipc Section order7,rule1and2cpc. Status: ORDERS-CIVIL. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAYG300001662019
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
Filing Number
27/2019
Filing Date
31-05-2019
Registration No
27/2019
Registration Date
31-05-2019
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,SHORAPUR
Judge
765-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,SHORAPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vishnuvardhan
Adv. Arvind Kumar
Respondent(s)
Mabusab
Hearing History
Judge: 765-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,SHORAPUR
ORDERS-CIVIL
ORDERS-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
SUMMONS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | ORDERS-CIVIL |
| 10-04-2026 | ORDERS-CIVIL |
| 02-04-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 27-03-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 13-03-2026 | SUMMONS |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS No. 27/2019 (Vishnuvardhan v. Mabusab) Outcome: The court dismissed the application (I.A. No. 8) filed by third-party petitioner Syed Sami Ahamed seeking to be added as Defendant No. 2 in this specific performance suit. Key Finding: The court held that adding the third party would improperly enlarge the suit's scope from a limited specific performance action (involving only the contract between plaintiff and defendant) into a complex title and possession dispute, which is not permissible under law. The third party's presence was deemed unnecessary since the contract exists only between plaintiff and defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS No. 27/2019 (Vishnuvardhan v. Mabusab) Outcome: The court dismissed the application (I.A. No. 8) filed by third-party petitioner Syed Sami Ahamed seeking to be added as Defendant No. 2 in this specific performance suit. Key Finding: The court held that adding the third party would improperly enlarge the suit's scope from a limited specific performance action (involving only the contract between plaintiff and defendant) into a complex title and possession dispute, which is not permissible under law. The third party's presence was deemed unnecessary since the contract exists only between plaintiff and defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts