Mohammed Yousuff vs Smt. Haneefabi — 16/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/s26Order7rule1ofC.P.C.. Status: ORDERS. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KACM600000492016
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
16/2016
Filing Date
26-04-2016
Registration No
16/2016
Registration Date
26-04-2016
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRINGERI
Judge
225-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, Sringeri
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mohammed Yousuff
Adv. K.R.Suresh
Respondent(s)
Smt. Haneefabi
Smt. Sharifabi
Smt. Maqbool @ Mallika
Smt. Zareena
Smt. Parveen
Smt. Ameena
Smt Noorjahan
Mr Munawar
Riyaz
Smt. Zabeena
Smt. Naseema
Smt. Mubeena @ Rasheeda Banu
Smt. Rihana @ Khatiza
Smt. Parzana @ Khuteza
2(a) Sahera Banu
2(b) Fayaz Ahamed
Hearing History
Judge: 225-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, Sringeri
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 26-03-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 07-03-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 21-02-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 19-02-2026 | HEARING |
Interim Orders
Summary The Court dismissed the defendant's application (I.A. No. XVIII) seeking appointment of an ADLR (Additional District Land Records) as Court Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property in a partition suit. The Court found that the defendant failed to establish grounds necessary for appointing a Commissioner, noting that documentary evidence already produced sufficiently establishes property existence and character, and that any property changes can be ascertained during final decree proceedings. The Court rejected the application as an attempt to delay proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Court dismissed the defendant's application (I.A. No. XVIII) seeking appointment of an ADLR (Additional District Land Records) as Court Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property in a partition suit. The Court found that the defendant failed to establish grounds necessary for appointing a Commissioner, noting that documentary evidence already produced sufficiently establishes property existence and character, and that any property changes can be ascertained during final decree proceedings. The Court rejected the application as an attempt to delay proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts