Vasant Appa Navali vs Annappa appa Navali Advocate - T.P.BANGI — 97/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section CPC. Status: AMENDMENT/AMENDED PLAINT. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KABK710016662017
Next Hearing
24th April 2026
Filing Number
99/2017
Filing Date
18-08-2017
Registration No
97/2017
Registration Date
18-08-2017
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI
Judge
119-PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMKHANDI.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vasant Appa Navali
Adv. G. D. TELI
Bhimashi Appa Navali
Ramabai Bhausaheb Kavatekar
Respondent(s)
Annappa appa Navali Advocate - T.P.BANGI
Shankar Appa Navali
Shantabai Shivsji Navali
Sambhaji shivaji Navali
Pundalik Shivaji Navali
Geeta Ramesh Sambajigol
Sridevi Sambhaji Jadhav
Rukmawwa Kittappa Navali
Shala Shiddu Bhosale
Mala Santosh Jadhav
Summawwa Tukaram Jadhav
2a sulalawwa Shankar navali
2 b Paramanand S/o Shankar Navali
2c Siddu S/o Shankar Navali
2d Yoshadha W/o Tulajappa Jadhav
Hearing History
Judge: 119-PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMKHANDI.
AMENDMENT/AMENDED PLAINT
AMENDMENT/AMENDED PLAINT
AMENDMENT/AMENDED PLAINT
APPEARANCE
APPEARANCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | AMENDMENT/AMENDED PLAINT |
| 06-03-2026 | AMENDMENT/AMENDED PLAINT |
| 03-03-2026 | AMENDMENT/AMENDED PLAINT |
| 07-01-2026 | APPEARANCE |
| 19-11-2025 | APPEARANCE |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Court allowed I.A. No. VI filed by applicant Shri. Dondibha S/o Balashaheb Shinde, permitting him to be impleaded as Defendant No. 12 in a partition suit (O.S. No. 97/2017). The court found the applicant is a necessary and proper party since he claims independent rights in the disputed properties through long-standing adverse possession, and his presence is essential to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The plaintiff was directed to amend the plaint accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Court allowed I.A. No. VI filed by applicant Shri. Dondibha S/o Balashaheb Shinde, permitting him to be impleaded as Defendant No. 12 in a partition suit (O.S. No. 97/2017). The court found the applicant is a necessary and proper party since he claims independent rights in the disputed properties through long-standing adverse possession, and his presence is essential to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The plaintiff was directed to amend the plaint accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts