CHANDRAMUNI KAMAJI HINGOLE ADV AMIT ARUNKUMAR MUKHEDKAR vs PADAMSINGH VITHAL JANAKWADE AND ANOTHER — SA/264/2026

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 100. Next hearing: 07th July 2026.

CNR: HCBM030186042026

Next Hearing

07th July 2026

e-Filing Number

05-05-2026

Filing Number

SA/13841/2026

Filing Date

06-05-2026

Registration No

SA/264/2026

Registration Date

06-05-2026

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MEHROZ K. PATHAN

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MEHROZ K. PATHAN

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

CHANDRAMUNI KAMAJI HINGOLE ADV AMIT ARUNKUMAR MUKHEDKAR

Respondent(s)

PADAMSINGH VITHAL JANAKWADE AND ANOTHER

Vithalrao s/o Tukaram Janakwade

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MEHROZ K. PATHAN

07-05-2026

PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH CIVIL SIDE MATTERS

07-07-2026

FOR ORDERS

07-07-2026

FOR ORDERS

Orders

07-05-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MEHROZ K. PATHAN

Case Summary: SA 264/2026 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) admitted a second appeal by Chandramuni Kamaji Hingole challenging the District Judge's decision that reversed the trial court's judgment. The trial court had dismissed a suit seeking cancellation of a 1990 sale deed and allowed the appellant's counter-claim for possession. The appellate court reversed this, prompting the High Court to issue notice returnable on 07.07.2026. The court identified substantial questions of law regarding whether the appellate findings were perverse and whether judgment was legally tenable given the registered sale deed remains unset aside. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: SA 264/2026 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) admitted a second appeal by Chandramuni Kamaji Hingole challenging the District Judge's decision that reversed the trial court's judgment. The trial court had dismissed a suit seeking cancellation of a 1990 sale deed and allowed the appellant's counter-claim for possession. The appellate court reversed this, prompting the High Court to issue notice returnable on 07.07.2026. The court identified substantial questions of law regarding whether the appellate findings were perverse and whether judgment was legally tenable given the registered sale deed remains unset aside. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case