SRI. P A MANJUNATH vs MAMATHA Advocate - MUNIRAJU K — CRP/63/2025
Case under None Section NONE. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 12th June 2026.
CNR: KAHC010049682025
Filing Number
CRP/61/2025
Filing Date
22-01-2025
Registration No
CRP/63/2025
Registration Date
23-01-2025
Judge
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Coram
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRP ( 108 )
Sub-Category
IO-Interim Orders (U/s 115 of CPC) ( 31 )
Judicial Branch
Judicial Section
Decision Date
12th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SRI. P A MANJUNATH
Adv. MURALI N
SMT. VANAJAKASHI
SMT. ASWINI P.M
SMT. NAVEEN P M
SRI. SURENDRA P.M
Respondent(s)
MAMATHA Advocate - MUNIRAJU K
BABY PARINITHA B
Adv. MUNIRAJU K
BABY LIKITHA B
Adv. MUNIRAJU K
Hearing History
Judge: M.NAGAPRASANNA
HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN
FURTHER HEARING
FURTHER HEARING
FURTHER HEARING
FURTHER HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-01-2025 | HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN |
| 27-03-2026 | FURTHER HEARING |
| 13-02-2026 | FURTHER HEARING |
| 06-02-2026 | FURTHER HEARING |
| 09-01-2026 | FURTHER HEARING |
Orders
Summary of CRP/63/2025 The High Court of Karnataka allowed the civil revision petition and rejected the plaintiffs' suit for partition. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a sustainable cause of action, as it attempted to reopen a registered partition deed from 2004 (executed 20 years prior) to which the deceased husband and father of the plaintiffs was himself a signatory. The court found the plaintiffs' claim that they were unaware of the partition deed implausible and ruled that the suit constituted an abuse of judicial process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of CRP/63/2025 The High Court of Karnataka allowed the civil revision petition and rejected the plaintiffs' suit for partition. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a sustainable cause of action, as it attempted to reopen a registered partition deed from 2004 (executed 20 years prior) to which the deceased husband and father of the plaintiffs was himself a signatory. The court found the plaintiffs' claim that they were unaware of the partition deed implausible and ruled that the suit constituted an abuse of judicial process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts