M R SRINGESHWARA Versus M R VENKATESH AND ANR. ASHOK BANNIDINNI [R-1] FOR PRE-FINAL HEARING. (C.A. 1627/2026)

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it to findcaseseasily@gmail.com — our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

FindCasesEasilyFindCasesEasily.comAI-Powered Case Law & Court Intelligence

Supreme Court of India

Unified case view

0 cases

Sort

Reading · C.A. 1627/2026

Case Record

C.A. 1627/2026

M R SRINGESHWARA Versus M R VENKATESH AND ANR. ASHOK BANNIDINNI [R-1] FOR PRE-FINAL HEARING.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

C.A.Appellate relief Civil appeals Delay

10 PDF renditions· 10 distinct judicial orders· 10 verified locally

Save

8Important Paragraphs
6Legal Principles
12Authorities
47Similar Cases

Case record

Research

What Happened

M R SRINGESHWARA Versus M R VENKATESH & ANR.. C.A. 1627/2026 in the Supreme Court of India, CNR SCIN010417962024. Status on the court record: DISPOSED. This page is written from 10 order document(s) downloaded for this case, dated 11 November 2024 to 21 August 2026.

On 11 November 2024 the order records: Delay condoned. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
On 3 January 2025 the order records: Respondent no.1 is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit. Ld. counsel for the petitioner is granted two weeks' time to take fresh steps and file fresh particulars in respect of unserved respondent no.2.
On 11 February 2025 the order records: Respondent no.1 is granted four weeks' time as last opportunity for filing counter affidavit. Ld. counsel for the petitioner is granted two weeks' time as last opportunity to take fresh steps and file fresh particulars in respect of unserved respondent no.2.
On 27 March 2025 the order records: Respondent No.1 has failed to file counter affidavit, despite the grant of last opportunity. Hence, further opportunity is hereby declined. As per office report, Ld.Counsel for the petitioner has failed to take fresh steps and to file fresh particulars, despite the grant of last opportunity, for service on respondent N
On 9 May 2025 the order records: Opportunity to file counter affidavit has already been declined in respect of Respondent No. 1 on 27.3.2025. Service is complete on respondent No.2 but none has entered appearance.
On 6 January 2026 the order records: 1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) prays for an adjournment on the ground of bereavement in the family of the arguing counsel. Prayer accepted. 2. List on 10.02.2026.
On 12 March 2026 the order records: Counter affidavit has already been filed by respondent No.1. Service was complete on respondent No.2 at SLP stage but none has entered appearance.
On 21 August 2026 the order records: 1. This appeal arises out of O.S. No. 13/2009. 2. The suit was instituted for partition.

Issues Before Court

The orders on this record do not frame issues for decision.

Procedural History

11 November 2024. Delay condoned. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
3 January 2025. Respondent no.1 is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit. Ld. counsel for the petitioner is granted two weeks' time to take fresh steps and file fresh particulars in respect of unserved respondent no.2.
11 February 2025. Respondent no.1 is granted four weeks' time as last opportunity for filing counter affidavit. Ld. counsel for the petitioner is granted two weeks' time as last opportunity to take fresh steps and file fresh particulars in respect of unserved respondent no.2.
27 March 2025. Respondent No.1 has failed to file counter affidavit, despite the grant of last opportunity. Hence, further opportunity is hereby declined. As per office report, Ld.Counsel for the petitioner has failed to take fresh steps and to file fresh particulars, despite the grant of last opportunity, for service on respondent N
9 May 2025. Opportunity to file counter affidavit has already been declined in respect of Respondent No. 1 on 27.3.2025. Service is complete on respondent No.2 but none has entered appearance.
2 December 2025. List on 06.01.2026.
6 January 2026. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) prays for an adjournment on the ground of bereavement in the family of the arguing counsel. Prayer accepted. 2. List on 10.02.2026.
10 February 2026. 1. Counter affidavit stated to have been filed is not on record. 2. Leave granted.
12 March 2026. Counter affidavit has already been filed by respondent No.1. Service was complete on respondent No.2 at SLP stage but none has entered appearance.
21 August 2026. 1. This appeal arises out of O.S. No. 13/2009. 2. The suit was instituted for partition.
Counsel named on these orders, not a complete vakalatnama, include the advocates listed below.

Advocates — Appellants: Mrs. Prabha Swami, Mr. Nikhil Swami, Mr. Skanda Rk Rao, Ms. Divya Swami, Ms. Prabha Swami, Mr. Keshav Kumar, Mr. Udhay Krishna Ganesan Advocates — Respondents: Mr. Ashok Bannidinni, Ms. Betsara Mylliemngap

Relief Sought & Granted

On 21 August 2026 the latest order on this record says: 1. This appeal arises out of O.S. No. 13/2009. 2. The suit was instituted for partition.

The court record marks the case disposed. These order files do not contain a sentence that states the appeal or petition was allowed or dismissed, so that result is not restated here.

Subjects

Appellate relief Civil appeals Delay

Current position

DISPOSED · Latest recorded event 21 Aug 2026

Latest development

Latest recorded event 21 Aug 2026

Final disposition

DISPOSED

Important procedural note

Written only from 10 Supreme Court order file(s) for this case. No headnote or citation was added.