Ram @ Ramu S/o Saidappa Girani, Age 68 Yrs, Occ Retired ACC company employee, R/o H.no. 16-157 (old vs Abdul Rahiman S/o Mohd. Hajarath Hulla, Age 50 Yrs, Occ Business, R/o Chanda Bada, Gandhi Chowk, Sh — 21/2024

Case under Vii Rule 1 and 2 of Cpc. Status: CIVIL Evidence. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.

CIVIL Evidence Next hearing 09-Apr-2026 this date has passed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAKB820005892024

Filing Number

21/2024

Filing Date

29-May-2024

Registration No

21/2024

Registration Date

29-May-2024

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,SHAHABAD

Judge

330-CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

Last updated 14-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Vii Rule 1 and 2 of Cpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ram @ Ramu S/o Saidappa Girani, Age 68 Yrs, Occ Retired ACC company employee, R/o H.no. 16-157 (old

    Adv. H Babankar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Abdul Rahiman S/o Mohd. Hajarath Hulla, Age 50 Yrs, Occ Business, R/o Chanda Bada, Gandhi Chowk, Sh

Case History

  1. 09-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  3. 21-Feb-2026

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  4. 06-Feb-2026

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  5. 04-Feb-2026

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  6. 28-Jan-2026

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  7. 14-Jan-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    Summary: In this civil suit (OS.No.21/2024), the court examined witness PW.1 on 14-01-2026 regarding a dispute over a pathway. The defendant's counsel cross-examined the witness, challenging claims about obstruction of the road and the defendant's alleged renovation activities. The court found the defendant's counsel's arguments regarding false testimony and fabricated allegations in the plaintiff's pleadings to be without merit. The case was adjourned with no cross-examination further permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 14-Jan-2026

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  9. 07-Jan-2026

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  10. 19-Dec-2025

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  11. 03-Dec-2025

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  12. 19-Nov-2025

    Issues.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  13. 29-Oct-2025

    CIVIL Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  14. 08-Oct-2025

    CIVIL Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  15. 01-Oct-2025

    CIVIL Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  16. 30-Jul-2025

    CIVIL Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  17. 03-Jul-2025

    Criminal Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  18. 13-Jun-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  19. 13-Jun-2025

    Criminal Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  20. 03-Jun-2025

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  21. 29-Apr-2025

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  22. 07-Apr-2025

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  23. 05-Mar-2025

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  24. 06-Jan-2025

    CIVIL Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  25. 16-Nov-2024

    Summons

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  26. 21-Oct-2024

    Summons

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  27. 09-Aug-2024

    Summons

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  28. 10-Jul-2024

    Hearing

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  29. 19-Jun-2024

    First Hearing

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  30. 07-Jun-2024

    First Hearing

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  31. 29-May-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 29-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 21/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In this civil suit (OS.No.21/2024), the court examined witness PW.1 on 14-01-2026 regarding a dispute over a pathway. The defendant's counsel cross-examined the witness, challenging claims about obstruction of the road and the defendant's alleged renovation activities. The court found the defendant's counsel's arguments regarding false testimony and fabricated allegations in the plaintiff's pleadings to be without merit. The case was adjourned with no cross-examination further permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case