PUNDLIK S/O. SHANKAR WAKADE vs SURESH S/O. NAMDEV CHILBULE Advocate - ANUP SHANKAR DHORE, (FOR RESPONDENT) — WP/3119/2026

Case under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section 226,227. Next hearing: 04th May 2026.

Next hearing 04-May-2026

CNR: HCBM040104152026

Filing Number

WP/7134/2026

Filing Date

24-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP/3119/2026

Registration Date

16-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section 226,227
C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PUNDLIK S/O. SHANKAR WAKADE

    Adv. NITIN R. BHISHIKAR,ROHAN BHISHIKAR,ROHAN BHISHIKAR, ,ROHAN BHISHIKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SURESH S/O. NAMDEV CHILBULE Advocate - ANUP SHANKAR DHORE, (FOR RESPONDENT)

Case History

  1. 04-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 04-May-2026

    Fresh Admission - Rent Act Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  3. 02-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  4. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/3119/2026 Pundlik S/O. Shankar Wakade challenged overlapping conditions (Nos. 3(ii) and 3(iv)) imposed by the appellate Court in its remand order dated 03.02.2026. The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, issued notice to the respondent returnable on 04.05.2026 and permitted the petitioner to serve the respondent through both private and regular modes of service. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/3119/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/3119/2026 Pundlik S/O. Shankar Wakade challenged overlapping conditions (Nos. 3(ii) and 3(iv)) imposed by the appellate Court in its remand order dated 03.02.2026. The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, issued notice to the respondent returnable on 04.05.2026 and permitted the petitioner to serve the respondent through both private and regular modes of service. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case