Khatijabi Jafar Shaikh vs Naim Jafar Shaikh — 873/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAU070071242025
Next Hearing
09th July 2026
e-Filing Number
12-11-2025
Filing Number
5011/2025
Filing Date
20-11-2025
Registration No
873/2025
Registration Date
21-11-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Gangapur
Judge
6-JT. CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION GANGAPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Khatijabi Jafar Shaikh
Adv. Dalvi S.K.
Respondent(s)
Naim Jafar Shaikh
Kayyum Jafar Shaikh
Fayyum Jafar Shaikh
Mangalbai Raghunath Lembe
Hearing History
Judge: 6-JT. CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION GANGAPUR
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 12-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 26-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 18-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 10-02-2026 | Order |
Interim Orders
Case 873/2025 Summary: The defendants' application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) and (f) of the Civil Procedure Code was rejected. The court held that the suit, which seeks partition, separate possession, and declaration that a sale deed dated 03.07.2024 is non-binding, was properly instituted and the court fee was properly paid. Although the plaintiff (not being a party to the sale deed) sought relief under partition concepts unfamiliar to Muslim law, the court found no statutory ground for rejection and ruled that improper legal framing alone does not justify dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 873/2025 Summary: The defendants' application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) and (f) of the Civil Procedure Code was rejected. The court held that the suit, which seeks partition, separate possession, and declaration that a sale deed dated 03.07.2024 is non-binding, was properly instituted and the court fee was properly paid. Although the plaintiff (not being a party to the sale deed) sought relief under partition concepts unfamiliar to Muslim law, the court found no statutory ground for rejection and ruled that improper legal framing alone does not justify dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts