SHAHU SUBHASH GAIKWAD PRAVEEN BALIRAM RAKHUNDE vs SUBHASH PANDURANG GAIKWAD AND OTHERS — HCBM30123552026

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 100. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCBM030123552026

e-Filing Number

23-03-2026

Filing Number

SA/9236/2026

Filing Date

26-Mar-2026

Judge

Shri Pradeep B. Ghuge (Registrar Judl.)

Coram

Shri Pradeep B. Ghuge (Registrar Judl.)

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 100

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHAHU SUBHASH GAIKWAD PRAVEEN BALIRAM RAKHUNDE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUBHASH PANDURANG GAIKWAD AND OTHERS

  2. 2.CHTRABHUJ SUBHASH GAIKWAD

  3. 3.SUNITA MAHADEV GODASE

  4. 4.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PROJECT OFFICER

  5. 5.PARIMALA SUBHASH GAIKWAD

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 28-May-2026

    Shri Pradeep B. Ghuge (Registrar Judl.)View PDF

    Summary: In Second Appeal No. 9236 of 2026 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, the court waived a procedural objection regarding the inclusion of Respondent No. 5 in the appeal. The court held that Respondent No. 5, being the original Plaintiff No. 2 and a necessary party to the original proceedings, was properly made a respondent in the Second Appeal despite not being impleaded in the Civil Miscellaneous Application before the First Appellate Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Shri Pradeep B. Ghuge (Registrar Judl.)View PDF

  4. 22-Apr-2026

    Objections Not Removed (First Time)

    Shri Pradeep B. Ghuge (Registrar Judl.)

  5. 26-Mar-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In Second Appeal No. 9236 of 2026 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, the court waived a procedural objection regarding the inclusion of Respondent No. 5 in the appeal. The court held that Respondent No. 5, being the original Plaintiff No. 2 and a necessary party to the original proceedings, was properly made a respondent in the Second Appeal despite not being impleaded in the Civil Miscellaneous Application before the First Appellate Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case