SHRI. JAIPRAKASH SURENDRALAL JAISWAL AND OTHERS vs SHRI. DNYANESHWAR FATTUJI DHOPTE AND ANOTHER — CRA/8/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 115. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 22nd April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 05-Feb-2026

CNR: HCBM040003622026

Filing Number

CRA/241/2026

Filing Date

07-Jan-2026

Registration No

CRA/8/2026

Registration Date

20-Jan-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

Bench Type

Single

Category

SUITS ( 38 )

Sub-Category

OTHER ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

22-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 115
Specific Relief Act
Forest (Conservation) Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRI. JAIPRAKASH SURENDRALAL JAISWAL AND OTHERS

    Adv. ROHAN RAJEEV CHHABRA,KARTIKAY KRISHNA KHANORKAR (FOR APPELLANT NO.1 TO

  2. 2.,KARTIKAY KRISHNA KHANORKAR (FOR APPELLANT NO.1 TO

  3. 3., ,YOHAN R. CHOUGULE,KIRAN MAHESH ISRANI,VITTHAL R. MUNDRA (FOR APPELLANT NO.1 TO

  4. 4.,SAURABH N. TAPADIA (FOR APPELLANT NO.1 TO

  5. 5.,KARTIKAY KRISHNA KHANORKAR (FOR APPELLANT NO.1 TO

  6. 6.SHRI. SANJAY SURENDRALAL JAISWAL

  7. 7.SMT. RAJNI VIRENDRALAL JAISWAL

  8. 8.SMT. LATA VIJAY GUPTA

  9. 9.SHRI. VIJAY SURENDRALAL JAISWAL

  10. 10.SHRI. AJAY SURENDRALAL JAISWAL

  11. 11.SMT. ALKA SURENDRALAL JAISWAL

  12. 12.SMT. PRABHADEVI @ RATNAPRABHA GOPALDAS JAISWAL

  13. 13.SHRI. SIDDHART SURENDRALAL JAISWAL

  14. 14.SMT. SHUBHRA VISHAL JAISWAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHRI. DNYANESHWAR FATTUJI DHOPTE AND ANOTHER

    Adv. SIDDHARTH S. UPADHYAY (FOR R/

  2. 2.,KRISHNA S. AGRAWAL (FOR R/

  3. 3.,CHINTAN SANDIP TAMHANE (FOR R/

  4. 4.1123

  5. 5.M/S. GAJANAN BUILDERS DEVELOPERS, THR ITS PARTNER, SHRI. ANIL MAHADEORAO, NAGPUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 22-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo JoshiView PDF

    Case Summary: CRA 8/2026 The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) rejected the defendants' civil revision application challenging the trial court's rejection of their plaint objections. The court held that the plaintiff's second suit for specific performance of a land contract was not barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) of the CPC because the earlier suit's withdrawal order (2022) expressly granted liberty to file a fresh suit if necessary, constituting express permission rather than unconditional withdrawal. Additionally, the court ruled that the land being recorded as "Zudpi Jungle" (forest land) under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 cannot bar the suit's maintainability, as civil courts are competent to pass unconditional decrees for forest land transfers subject to state government sanction, which remains a separate matter from pleading stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Apr-2026

    For Admission - -

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

  4. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo JoshiView PDF

  5. 17-Apr-2026

    For Admission - -

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

  6. 18-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo JoshiView PDF

  7. 18-Mar-2026

    For Admission - -

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

  8. 05-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo JoshiView PDF

  9. 05-Mar-2026

    For Orders - (Civil Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

  10. 09-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo JoshiView PDF

  11. 09-Feb-2026

    For Admission -

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

  12. 09-Feb-2026

    For Admission -

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

  13. 05-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  14. 21-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo JoshiView PDF

  15. 07-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRA/8/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRA 8/2026 The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) rejected the defendants' civil revision application challenging the trial court's rejection of their plaint objections. The court held that the plaintiff's second suit for specific performance of a land contract was not barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) of the CPC because the earlier suit's withdrawal order (2022) expressly granted liberty to file a fresh suit if necessary, constituting express permission rather than unconditional withdrawal. Additionally, the court ruled that the land being recorded as "Zudpi Jungle" (forest land) under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 cannot bar the suit's maintainability, as civil courts are competent to pass unconditional decrees for forest land transfers subject to state government sanction, which remains a separate matter from pleading stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case