Juravar Khan Ajab Khan vs The Manager, Idea Cellular Ltd., — 1300084/2015
Case under Specific Relief Act Section O39,R2-A,R/w151. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHWS040008002015
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
Filing Number
1300106/2015
Filing Date
24-07-2015
Registration No
1300084/2015
Registration Date
27-07-2015
Court
Civil Court Junior Division, Mangrulpir
Judge
2-2nd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Mangrulpir
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Juravar Khan Ajab Khan
Adv. Anil Bhagat
Respondent(s)
The Manager, Idea Cellular Ltd.,
Ajamakhan Mehamood Khan
Nakmunnisa Nasirkhan
Ejaj Ahmedkhan Nasirkhan
Isar Ahmedkhan Nasirkhan
Naved Ahmedkhan Nasirkhan
Shoed Ahmedkhan Nasirkhan
Rubina Parveen M. Kuddus
Afrin Anjum Mohd Ishtuyaque
Diba Nyamatulla KHan Painter
Sadiya Siddiqu Akil Ahmedkhan.
Sabiya Naj Nasir Khan
Hearing History
Judge: 2-2nd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Mangrulpir
Evidence
Evidence
Additional Issues
Amended W.S.
Amended W.S.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 04-04-2026 | Additional Issues |
| 16-03-2026 | Amended W.S. |
| 27-02-2026 | Amended W.S. |
Interim Orders
The plaintiff's application to amend the plaint was allowed on 18 November 2025. The court permitted addition of prayer clauses for mesne profit and mandatory injunction for demolition of an illegally erected mobile tower, finding the amendments explanatory and necessary to determine the real questions in controversy. The plaintiff was ordered to pay Rs. 2,000 in costs to defendants and file the amended plaint accordingly, or the application would stand rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The plaintiff's application to amend the plaint was allowed on 18 November 2025. The court permitted addition of prayer clauses for mesne profit and mandatory injunction for demolition of an illegally erected mobile tower, finding the amendments explanatory and necessary to determine the real questions in controversy. The plaintiff was ordered to pay Rs. 2,000 in costs to defendants and file the amended plaint accordingly, or the application would stand rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts