SHRI. JAIPRAKASH SURENDRALAL JAISWAL AND OTHERS vs SHRI. DNYANESHWAR FATTUJI DHOPTE AND ANOTHER — CRA/8/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Section 115. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 22nd April 2026.
CNR: HCBM040003622026
Next Hearing
05th February 2026
Filing Number
CRA/241/2026
Filing Date
07-01-2026
Registration No
CRA/8/2026
Registration Date
20-01-2026
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
22nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHRI. JAIPRAKASH SURENDRALAL JAISWAL AND OTHERS
Adv. ROHAN RAJEEV CHHABRA,KARTIKAY KRISHNA KHANORKAR (FOR APPELLANT NO.1 TO
,KARTIKAY KRISHNA KHANORKAR (FOR APPELLANT NO.1 TO
, ,YOHAN R. CHOUGULE,KIRAN MAHESH ISRANI,VITTHAL R. MUNDRA (FOR APPELLANT NO.1 TO
,SAURABH N. TAPADIA (FOR APPELLANT NO.1 TO
,KARTIKAY KRISHNA KHANORKAR (FOR APPELLANT NO.1 TO
SHRI. SANJAY SURENDRALAL JAISWAL
SMT. RAJNI VIRENDRALAL JAISWAL
SMT. LATA VIJAY GUPTA
SHRI. VIJAY SURENDRALAL JAISWAL
SHRI. AJAY SURENDRALAL JAISWAL
SMT. ALKA SURENDRALAL JAISWAL
SMT. PRABHADEVI @ RATNAPRABHA GOPALDAS JAISWAL
SHRI. SIDDHART SURENDRALAL JAISWAL
SMT. SHUBHRA VISHAL JAISWAL
Respondent(s)
SHRI. DNYANESHWAR FATTUJI DHOPTE AND ANOTHER
Adv. SIDDHARTH S. UPADHYAY (FOR R/
,KRISHNA S. AGRAWAL (FOR R/
,CHINTAN SANDIP TAMHANE (FOR R/
1123
M/S. GAJANAN BUILDERS DEVELOPERS, THR ITS PARTNER, SHRI. ANIL MAHADEORAO, NAGPUR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT WASUDEO JOSHI
FOR ADMISSION - -
FOR ADMISSION - -
FOR ADMISSION - -
FOR ORDERS - (CIVIL SIDE MATTERS)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-02-2026 | |
| 22-04-2026 | FOR ADMISSION - - |
| 17-04-2026 | FOR ADMISSION - - |
| 18-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION - - |
| 05-03-2026 | FOR ORDERS - (CIVIL SIDE MATTERS) |
Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts