EKTA KUKREJA vs M/S SRINIVASA TRUST — CRP/193/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 115. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: KAHC010150202026

Filing Number

CRP/187/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRP/193/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Judge

R Devdas

Coram

R Devdas

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRP ( 108 )

Sub-Category

M-Orders in Misc.Case ( 33 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 09-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 115

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.EKTA KUKREJA

    Adv. SOURABH R. K.

  2. 2.ANUSHKA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S SRINIVASA TRUST

  2. 2.KALPAJADALAVOI

  3. 3.D.A. THEJESHWARI

    Adv. VANDANA P L

  4. 4.SUB-REGISTRAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    R DevdasView PDF

    Summary The Karnataka High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the lower court's order transferring property dispute cases to another court. The court held that the respondents deliberately concealed filing a transfer application while seeking time extension from the High Court, and that the presiding officer's insistence on proceeding with the case (without granting adjournments) did not constitute bias but rather enforcement of the court's one-year disposal directive. The trial court was directed to conclude all proceedings within three months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Mar-2026

    Orders

    R Devdas

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRP/193/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Karnataka High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the lower court's order transferring property dispute cases to another court. The court held that the respondents deliberately concealed filing a transfer application while seeking time extension from the High Court, and that the presiding officer's insistence on proceeding with the case (without granting adjournments) did not constitute bias but rather enforcement of the court's one-year disposal directive. The trial court was directed to conclude all proceedings within three months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case