JAAN MOHAMMAD vs HASIM — 254/2024
Case under Suit for Declaration Section 2. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED ON MERITS on 28th April 2026.
CS - CIVIL SUIT FOR DJ ADJ
CNR: DLNE010021912024
e-Filing Number
29-07-2024
Filing Number
1069/2024
Filing Date
21-06-2024
Registration No
254/2024
Registration Date
01-08-2024
Court
District and Sessions Judge, North-East, KKD
Judge
429-District Judge
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED ON MERITS
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAAN MOHAMMAD
Adv. Ankit Mehta
Respondent(s)
HASIM
Qadir
SHAQEEL
Hearing History
Judge: 429-District Judge
Disposed
Order
Final Arguments
Final Arguments
Misc. cases
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-04-2026 | Order |
| 02-04-2026 | Final Arguments |
| 30-03-2026 | Final Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Misc. cases |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Jaan Mohammad v. Hasim and Others (CS 254/2024) Decision: The court dismissed plaintiff's suit seeking ₹6 lakh in damages for a fire that damaged his grocery shop. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence by the defendants, as his affidavit in evidence contained no specific factual allegations of negligence and lacked documentary evidence (such as FSL reports) establishing a causal nexus between the fire and defendants' actions. Additionally, the plaintiff's own admission and site plan evidence showed his shop was not adjacent to defendants' shop but separated by a passage and another shop, undermining his negligence claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Jaan Mohammad v. Hasim and Others (CS 254/2024) Decision: The court dismissed plaintiff's suit seeking ₹6 lakh in damages for a fire that damaged his grocery shop. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence by the defendants, as his affidavit in evidence contained no specific factual allegations of negligence and lacked documentary evidence (such as FSL reports) establishing a causal nexus between the fire and defendants' actions. Additionally, the plaintiff's own admission and site plan evidence showed his shop was not adjacent to defendants' shop but separated by a passage and another shop, undermining his negligence claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts