Khan Wajid Rashid vs Shaikh Chandubhai Babulal Advocate - Shaikh R. A. — 200103/2012
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 23rd April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAH140002272012
Next Hearing
23rd April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200103/2012
Filing Date
03-08-2012
Registration No
200103/2012
Registration Date
03-08-2012
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Newasa
Judge
1-Senior Division Newasa
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Khan Wajid Rashid
Adv. Changediya V. H.
Respondent(s)
Shaikh Chandubhai Babulal Advocate - Shaikh R. A.
shiakh ebrahim chdubhai
Adv. Shaikh R. A.
shaikh eqbal chndubhai
Adv. Shaikh R. A.
shaikh riyas chndubhai
Adv. Shaikh R. A.
shaikh raju chndubhai
Adv. Shaikh R. A.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Senior Division Newasa
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
For Referal to the Special Mediation Drive Mediation For the Nation _Ready
For Referal to the Special Mediation Drive Mediation For the Nation _Ready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 22-01-2026 | Evidence | |
| 16-12-2025 | Evidence | |
| 10-11-2025 | For Referal to the Special Mediation Drive Mediation For the Nation _Ready | |
| 24-09-2025 | For Referal to the Special Mediation Drive Mediation For the Nation _Ready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The plaintiff's application under Section 114 CPC for review of a previous court order regarding court fee payment was rejected and dismissed on 08.04.2024. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the earlier order (Exh. 165) requiring deposit of deficit court fee was incorrect or that the plaintiff was exempt from paying court fees under law. The application lacked substance and was disposed of accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The plaintiff's application under Section 114 CPC for review of a previous court order regarding court fee payment was rejected and dismissed on 08.04.2024. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the earlier order (Exh. 165) requiring deposit of deficit court fee was incorrect or that the plaintiff was exempt from paying court fees under law. The application lacked substance and was disposed of 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