Nijam Latifkhan Pathan vs Badshaha Latifkhan Pathan Advocate - Bade B.S. — 1700054/2012
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section PartitionandSeparatePossession. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHBI160002252012
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
1700054/2012
Filing Date
07-04-2012
Registration No
1700054/2012
Registration Date
07-04-2012
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Shirur
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC SHIRUR-K
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nijam Latifkhan Pathan
Adv. Yele B.E.
Respondent(s)
Badshaha Latifkhan Pathan Advocate - Bade B.S.
Afajalkhan Latifkhan Pathan
Adv. B S Bade
Abedabi Latifkhan Pathan
Adv. B S Bade
Shaydabi Elahi Shaikh
Adv. B S Bade
Jaydabi Shkil Shaikh
Adv. B S Bade
Afasar Nijamkhan Pathan
Adv. B S Bade
Harun Kadar Pathan
Adv. B S Bade
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC SHIRUR-K
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 15-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 01-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 09-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary: Defendant No. 1's application to set aside the "no written statement" order in a partition and injunction suit was rejected. The court found that Defendant No. 1 caused an 11-year delay in filing his written statement without providing documentary evidence to support his reasons (blindness and naivety), and failed to meet the legal threshold of reasonable, sufficient, and bonafide grounds required to condone such an extended delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: Defendant No. 1's application to set aside the "no written statement" order in a partition and injunction suit was rejected. The court found that Defendant No. 1 caused an 11-year delay in filing his written statement without providing documentary evidence to support his reasons (blindness and naivety), and failed to meet the legal threshold of reasonable, sufficient, and bonafide grounds required to condone such an extended delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts