G. Fakir Beary vs G. Abdul Khadar Advocate - T. Balachandra Shetty — 392/2017
Case under Under Section 26, Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc 1908 Section 68. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUP320018492017
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
Filing Number
394/2017
Filing Date
10-11-2017
Registration No
392/2017
Registration Date
13-11-2017
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA
Judge
516-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
G. Fakir Beary
Adv. Malyady Jayarama Shetty
Respondent(s)
G. Abdul Khadar Advocate - T. Balachandra Shetty
Mr. Khathijabi, 76 Years
Adv. T. Balachandra Shetty
G. Hasanabba, 72 Years
Adv. T. Balachandra Shetty
Mrs. Aysha, 70 Years
Adv. T. Balachandra Shetty
Mrs. Zubeda, 66 Years
Adv. T. Balachandra Shetty
Mr. Ashfaq G.H., 24 Years
Adv. T. Balachandra Shetty
Hearing History
Judge: 516-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 05-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 08-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 01-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 30-10-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary In Civil Case No. 392/2017 from the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, the court held hearings on 06-03-2026. The judge rejected several contentions by the plaintiff's counsel regarding involvement in a related case (O.S. No. 7), property ownership claims, and inheritance matters related to Sheikh Bari's estate. The court found that the plaintiff lacked standing in the previous case, that the settlement and decree proceedings did not involve the plaintiff, and that insufficient evidence supported claims of property rights. The matter was adjourned for further proceedings with no re-examination ordered, pending consideration of property-related documents and the plaintiff's substantive claims on the merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In Civil Case No. 392/2017 from the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, the court held hearings on 06-03-2026. The judge rejected several contentions by the plaintiff's counsel regarding involvement in a related case (O.S. No. 7), property ownership claims, and inheritance matters related to Sheikh Bari's estate. The court found that the plaintiff lacked standing in the previous case, that the settlement and decree proceedings did not involve the plaintiff, and that insufficient evidence supported claims of property rights. The matter was adjourned for further proceedings with no re-examination ordered, pending consideration of property-related documents and the plaintiff's substantive claims on the merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts