SHOEB AKHTAR vs YAHIYA KHAN Advocate - SUSHIL KUMAR CHAUBEY, MAHESHWAR MISHRA, MAHESHWAR MISHRANAUROTAM KUMAR, — 4/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Status: Eviddence of Plaintiff / Petitioner. Next hearing: 29th June 2026.
Title Suit
CNR: BRWC220000072023
Filing Number
7/2023
Filing Date
09-Jan-2023
Registration No
4/2023
Registration Date
09-Jan-2023
Court
Narkatiaganj Civil Division
Judge
1-Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHOEB AKHTAR
Adv. LAKSHMAN PRASAD, MD JAWED AKHTAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.YAHIYA KHAN Advocate - SUSHIL KUMAR CHAUBEY, MAHESHWAR MISHRA, MAHESHWAR MISHRANAUROTAM KUMAR,
Case History
-
29-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
11-May-2026
Eviddence of Plaintiff / Petitioner
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
18-Mar-2026
Eviddence of Plaintiff / Petitioner
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
02-Feb-2026
Eviddence of Plaintiff / Petitioner
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
09-Dec-2025
Eviddence of Plaintiff / Petitioner
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
13-Nov-2025
Eviddence of Plaintiff / Petitioner
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
26-Sep-2025
IA OrderView PDF
Case Summary: Shoeb Akhtar v. Yahiya Khan (4/2023) Outcome: Petitioner's application under Order 39 Rule 1(a) and Section 151 CPC dismissed as not maintainable. Case adjourned to 13.11.2025 for petitioner's evidence. Key Details: Shoeb Akhtar filed a suit seeking to invalidate a sale deed dated 12.03.2022 of disputed property, alleging his brother (respondent) Yahiya Khan fraudulently obtained it without consideration during Akhtar's illness (COVID-19, TB, HIV-positive in 2022). Akhtar had requested an interim injunction restraining property sale during litigation. The court found no prima facie case or balance of convenience favoring the petitioner, as the respondent had already provided full compensation and Akhtar continues residing on the property with family. The petition was rejected as maintainable under the procedural requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Sep-2025
Eviddence of Plaintiff / Petitioner
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
18-Sep-2025
Order
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
26-Aug-2025
Hearing
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
12-Aug-2025
Order
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
29-Jul-2025
Hearing
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
14-Jul-2025
Hearing
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
08-Jul-2025
Hearing
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
09-Jun-2025
Eviddence of Plaintiff / Petitioner
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
16-Apr-2025
Eviddence of Plaintiff / Petitioner
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
10-Mar-2025
Eviddence of Plaintiff / Petitioner
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
24-Feb-2025
Issues
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
20-Jan-2025
Issues
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
03-Jan-2025
Issues
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
17-Dec-2024
Issues
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
24-Oct-2024
Documents
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
29-Aug-2024
Documents
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
29-Jul-2024
Settlement of Issues & Proceedings u/s 89crpc
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
27-Jun-2024
Hearing
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
16-May-2024
Hearing
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
22-Feb-2024
Appearence
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
30-Jan-2024
Appearence
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
07-Nov-2023
Appearence
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
01-Sep-2023
Appearence
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
22-Aug-2023
Appearence
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
23-May-2023
Appearence
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
28-Feb-2023
Appearence
Sub-Judge-I-Cum A.C.J.M
-
24-Jan-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Jan-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 4/2023
Case Summary: Shoeb Akhtar v. Yahiya Khan (4/2023) Outcome: Petitioner's application under Order 39 Rule 1(a) and Section 151 CPC dismissed as not maintainable. Case adjourned to 13.11.2025 for petitioner's evidence. Key Details: Shoeb Akhtar filed a suit seeking to invalidate a sale deed dated 12.03.2022 of disputed property, alleging his brother (respondent) Yahiya Khan fraudulently obtained it without consideration during Akhtar's illness (COVID-19, TB, HIV-positive in 2022). Akhtar had requested an interim injunction restraining property sale during litigation. The court found no prima facie case or balance of convenience favoring the petitioner, as the respondent had already provided full compensation and Akhtar continues residing on the property with family. The petition was rejected as maintainable under the procedural requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts