Hawabi, vs Mustafa, — 17/2015

Case under Order 7 Rules 1 C.p.c Section U/o7Rule1c.p.c.. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.

O.S. - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KAVN510001152015

ARGUMENTS

Next Hearing

08th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

16/2015

Filing Date

23-01-2015

Registration No

17/2015

Registration Date

24-01-2015

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI

Judge

254-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT

Acts & Sections

ORDER 7 RULES 1 C.P.C Section U/o7Rule1c.p.c.

Petitioner(s)

Hawabi,

Adv. V. Manjanna,

Imam Alisab,

Adv. V. Manjanna,

Respondent(s)

Mustafa,

Hameed,

Altaf,

Muneer,

Chand,

Hearing History

Judge: 254-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT

02-04-2026

ARGUMENTS

18-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

11-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

10-03-2026

ORDERS

09-03-2026

ORDERS

Interim Orders

08-07-2016
Issue
13-07-2017
Deposition
25-02-2019
Deposition
18-10-2019
Deposition
16-12-2019
Deposition
06-01-2020
Deposition
19-07-2022
Deposition
16-01-2025
Deposition
24-04-2025
Deposition
27-06-2025
Deposition
27-06-2025
Deposition
01-12-2025
Orders
18-12-2025
Deposition
18-12-2025
Deposition
18-12-2025
Deposition
18-12-2025
Deposition

Summary In OS No.17/2015 (DW-4), a witness was examined on 18-12-2025 and gave evidence under oath regarding a property dispute. The court found that the plaintiff's counsel made contradictory statements about the property's ownership and location, and the witness testimony contained inconsistencies regarding the plaintiff's knowledge of the disputed property details. The case proceeded with cross-examination, and the matter is scheduled for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary In OS No.17/2015 (DW-4), a witness was examined on 18-12-2025 and gave evidence under oath regarding a property dispute. The court found that the plaintiff's counsel made contradictory statements about the property's ownership and location, and the witness testimony contained inconsistencies regarding the plaintiff's knowledge of the disputed property details. The case proceeded with cross-examination, and the matter is scheduled for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case