Anis Fakir Ahmad Shaikh vs Hanumant Vishwanath More and 1 Advocate - Kaldate Prakash N — 57/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Ready. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.

Spl.C.S. - Spl.Civ.Suit

CNR: MHLA170009612023

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

Next Hearing

10th June 2026

Filing Number

1508/2023

Filing Date

08-03-2021

Registration No

57/2023

Registration Date

08-03-2021

Court

Civil Court Senior Division , Ausa

Judge

1-Civil Judge Senior Division Ausa

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O7

Petitioner(s)

Anis Fakir Ahmad Shaikh

Adv. Shaikh Mujeeb M

Respondent(s)

Hanumant Vishwanath More and 1 Advocate - Kaldate Prakash N

Vishal Vishwanath More

Adv. Kaldate Prakash N

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Ausa

04-05-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

28-04-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

09-04-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

13-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

02-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

Interim Orders

10-09-2025
Evidence
17-11-2025
Evidence
10-02-2026
Evidence

Case Summary: 57/2023 - Anis Fakir Ahmad Shaikh v. Hanumant Vishwanath More & Others Outcome: Appeal Allowed (Partially). The court set aside a 2019 decree regarding a land sale transaction worth ₹32,51,000, finding that the petitioner's affidavit evidence was false and contradictory. The court determined the respondents fraudulently obtained the decree and ordered the property transaction void. The court directed restoration of the land to the petitioner and imposed liability for damages of ₹8,00,000 against the respondents for breach of a mortgage agreement and failure to comply with court orders regarding property transfer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 57/2023 - Anis Fakir Ahmad Shaikh v. Hanumant Vishwanath More & Others Outcome: Appeal Allowed (Partially). The court set aside a 2019 decree regarding a land sale transaction worth ₹32,51,000, finding that the petitioner's affidavit evidence was false and contradictory. The court determined the respondents fraudulently obtained the decree and ordered the property transaction void. The court directed restoration of the land to the petitioner and imposed liability for damages of ₹8,00,000 against the respondents for breach of a mortgage agreement and failure to comply with court orders regarding property transfer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Senior Division , Ausa All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case