MS. PREETI DAYAKISHAN SAPRU ALIAS MRS. PRITI SAPRU WALIA vs MR. VISHNU UNDRYA THAKRE — AO/515/2026

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 96. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 24th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010637142025

Filing Number

AO/39157/2025

Filing Date

09-Dec-2025

Registration No

AO/515/2026

Registration Date

28-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav

Bench Type

Single

Category

CIVIL APPEALS ( 45 )

Sub-Category

Single Bench Matters ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

24-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MS. PREETI DAYAKISHAN SAPRU ALIAS MRS. PRITI SAPRU WALIA

    Adv. AVC AND ASSOCIATES

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MR. VISHNU UNDRYA THAKRE

  2. 2.MR. VINOD RAISHI MALDE

  3. 3.M/S ECO HOMES TOWNSHIP PVT.LTD THR ITS DIRECTORS GAURAV OMPRAKASH MONGA(Legal Heir)3.

  4. 4.SHRI. GAURAV OMPRAKASH MONGA3.

  5. 5.SHRI. JAYANTILAL ARJUN PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF

    Case Summary: AO/515/2026 Court Decision: The Bombay High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the trial court's order rejecting a registered Agreement for Sale dated 15.11.2006 as evidence. The court found the trial court's reasoning unsustainable in law, as the document was properly referenced in the plaintiff's plaint (para 15) and addressed by defendants in their written statement (para 22). Under Sections 62-64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the registered agreement qualifies as a primary document and must be marked as an exhibit. The impugned order was quashed, and the trial court was directed to admit the document as evidence while preserving defendants' right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness on its contents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    First On Board (Fob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav

  4. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF

  5. 23-Apr-2026

    For Orders (Due Matters)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav

  6. 02-Feb-2026

    For Orders (Objection Not Removed)

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)

  7. 29-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF

  8. 21-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF

  9. 19-Jan-2026

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)View PDF

  10. 19-Jan-2026

    For Orders (Objection Not Removed)

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)

  11. 05-Jan-2026

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)View PDF

  12. 15-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  13. 09-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. AO/515/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: AO/515/2026 Court Decision: The Bombay High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the trial court's order rejecting a registered Agreement for Sale dated 15.11.2006 as evidence. The court found the trial court's reasoning unsustainable in law, as the document was properly referenced in the plaintiff's plaint (para 15) and addressed by defendants in their written statement (para 22). Under Sections 62-64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the registered agreement qualifies as a primary document and must be marked as an exhibit. The impugned order was quashed, and the trial court was directed to admit the document as evidence while preserving defendants' right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness on its contents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case