Mannabee wo Wajir Shaikh vs Tabasum wo Rabbani Shaikh and other 3 Advocate - Adude Pandurang M — 1800089/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section order7Rule1. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA130005782015
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
Filing Number
1800183/2015
Filing Date
16-10-2015
Registration No
1800089/2015
Registration Date
16-10-2015
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Renapur
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.Renapur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mannabee wo Wajir Shaikh
Adv. Shaikh Sikandar C
Respondent(s)
Tabasum wo Rabbani Shaikh and other 3 Advocate - Adude Pandurang M
Shifa do Rabbani Shaikh
Adv. Adude Pandurang M
Aliya do Rabbani Shaikh
Adv. Adude Pandurang M
Mahetab so Wajir Shaikh
Adv. Surywanshi Balaji S
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.Renapur
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 30-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 04-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS No. 89 of 2015 (Mannabee Shaikh v. Tabasum Shaikh) Outcome: The court allowed the plaintiff's application to frame an additional issue in this property ownership dispute. The new issue requires determination of whether the suit property was self-acquired property of the plaintiff's sons (Rabbani and Mehtab), who allegedly received it as a gift from the plaintiff's father. The court found the additional issue necessary given the amended plaint's changed claims regarding the source and nature of the sons' rights over the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS No. 89 of 2015 (Mannabee Shaikh v. Tabasum Shaikh) Outcome: The court allowed the plaintiff's application to frame an additional issue in this property ownership dispute. The new issue requires determination of whether the suit property was self-acquired property of the plaintiff's sons (Rabbani and Mehtab), who allegedly received it as a gift from the plaintiff's father. The court found the additional issue necessary given the amended plaint's changed claims regarding the source and nature of the sons' rights over the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts