Aejaz Ahmed S/o Mohammad Ismail Narayanpet Age 55 Yrs Occ Cook. vs The Registrar Of Birth And Death, through Cheif Officer TMC, Aland — 631/2026
Case under Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section 13(iii). Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 18th May 2026.
Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES
CNR: KAKB220007582026
Filing Number
631/2026
Filing Date
05-02-2026
Registration No
631/2026
Registration Date
05-02-2026
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALAND
Judge
324-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE JMFC,Aland
Decision Date
18th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Aejaz Ahmed S/o Mohammad Ismail Narayanpet Age 55 Yrs Occ Cook.
Adv. Devanand Hodloorkar
Respondent(s)
The Registrar Of Birth And Death, through Cheif Officer TMC, Aland
Hearing History
Judge: 324-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE JMFC,Aland
Disposed
ORDERS..
NOTICE
NOTICE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 15-04-2026 | ORDERS.. |
| 14-03-2026 | NOTICE |
| 13-03-2026 | NOTICE |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed petitioner Aejaz Ahmed's petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, directing the Registrar to register his birth date (01-01-1970) and issue a birth certificate. The petitioner's testimony and documentary evidence (non-availability certificate and PAN card) established his birth was never registered despite occurring at his residential address, and the respondent's non-appearance left his claim unchallenged. The court clarified this order is not conclusive proof if disputed in future civil or criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court allowed petitioner Aejaz Ahmed's petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, directing the Registrar to register his birth date (01-01-1970) and issue a birth certificate. The petitioner's testimony and documentary evidence (non-availability certificate and PAN card) established his birth was never registered despite occurring at his residential address, and the respondent's non-appearance left his claim unchallenged. The court clarified this order is not conclusive proof if disputed in future civil or criminal 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