shajahan vs naseer Advocate - Nahas.F — 300271/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: For hearing on IA. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLTV470002462017
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
300271/2017
Filing Date
24-06-2017
Registration No
300271/2017
Registration Date
24-06-2017
Court
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Judge
1-Munsiff, Varkala
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
shajahan
Adv. SUMANAS. H
sheeba
Adv. SUMANAS. H
Respondent(s)
naseer Advocate - Nahas.F
shahida beevi
Adv. Nahas.F
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff, Varkala
For hearing on IA
For hearing on IA
For hearing on IA
For hearing on IA
For hearing on IA
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-05-2026 | For hearing on IA |
| 04-04-2026 | For hearing on IA |
| 13-03-2026 | For hearing on IA |
| 13-02-2026 | For hearing on IA |
| 16-12-2025 | For hearing on IA |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS 271/2017 - Shahjahan & Sheeba v. Nazeer & Shahidha Beevi Outcome: Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Key Facts: Defendants (Nazeer and Shahidha Beevi) filed an interlocutory application seeking to stay proceedings in OS 271/2017, arguing the subject matter was identical to a previously instituted suit (OS 258/2017) involving the same parties. They claimed proceeding with both suits would waste judicial time and risk conflicting judgments. Court's Decision: The Munsiff Court rejected the stay petition, finding that while the parties were identical, the properties involved were different—located in separate resurvey numbers (81 vs. 103) in Varkala village. Section 10 of the CPC requires identity of subject matter, not merely parties. The court held the petition lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS 271/2017 - Shahjahan & Sheeba v. Nazeer & Shahidha Beevi Outcome: Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Key Facts: Defendants (Nazeer and Shahidha Beevi) filed an interlocutory application seeking to stay proceedings in OS 271/2017, arguing the subject matter was identical to a previously instituted suit (OS 258/2017) involving the same parties. They claimed proceeding with both suits would waste judicial time and risk conflicting judgments. Court's Decision: The Munsiff Court rejected the stay petition, finding that while the parties were identical, the properties involved were different—located in separate resurvey numbers (81 vs. 103) in Varkala village. Section 10 of the CPC requires identity of subject matter, not merely parties. The court held the petition lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts