DILERAKHAN ABDULARAHIMANKHAN BIRADAR vs SHAHZAD BEGUM @ RAHAMATKHATIB MUSTAQKHAN BIRADAR Advocate - V.S.KONANAHALLI — 118/2010
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O.7,Rule1and3. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 17th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAHV600001552010
Next Hearing
17th March 2026
Filing Number
118/2010
Filing Date
17-04-2010
Registration No
118/2010
Registration Date
17-04-2010
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR
Judge
361-CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DILERAKHAN ABDULARAHIMANKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
AMJADKHAN KHASAMKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
HAMIDKHAN KHASAMKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
RIYAZKHAN RAUFKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
ALTAFKHAN RAUFKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
AQALAQUEKHAN RAUFKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
ATEQKHAN RAUFKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
TABREZKHAN AHMEDKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
AFZALKHAN AHMEDKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
MAJIDKHAN AHMEDKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
ABDULWAHIDKHAN HAKIMKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
FAZAL MOHAMMEDKHAN ABDULKARIMKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
ABDUL RAHEEMKHAN ABDUL RASHIDKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
MAHABOOBALIKHAN DILERKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
VALI MOHAMMEDKHAN DILERKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
NIYAZ MOHAMMEDKHAN DILERKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
MAJIDKHAN DILERKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
TABREZKHAN KHASAMKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
VALI MOHAMMEDKHAN KHASAMKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. M.S.MUDAGAL.
Respondent(s)
SHAHZAD BEGUM @ RAHAMATKHATIB MUSTAQKHAN BIRADAR Advocate - V.S.KONANAHALLI
MUSTAQKHAN FIROZKHAN BIRADAR
Adv. V.S.KONANAHALLI
STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAVANUR
Hearing History
Judge: 361-CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 11-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 10-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 07-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 06-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Summary The court rejected both interlocutory applications (IA-61 and IA-62) filed by plaintiffs seeking to reopen the case for additional evidence and summon the Deputy Commissioner as a witness. The court found that the proposed evidence regarding possession delivery by Court of Wards was irrelevant to the suit's core issues of legal heirship and alleged fraud, and that reopening evidence at the final arguments stage was unwarranted. Plaintiffs ordered to pay Rs. 500 each as costs to TLSC Savanur. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected both interlocutory applications (IA-61 and IA-62) filed by plaintiffs seeking to reopen the case for additional evidence and summon the Deputy Commissioner as a witness. The court found that the proposed evidence regarding possession delivery by Court of Wards was irrelevant to the suit's core issues of legal heirship and alleged fraud, and that reopening evidence at the final arguments stage was unwarranted. Plaintiffs ordered to pay Rs. 500 each as costs to TLSC Savanur. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts