JAGADEVI W/O SHARANAPPA NAVLEKAR vs SUVARNA W/O SOMARAY KUTNOOR — 48/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section VIIRULE1AND2. Status: EVIDENCE-CIVIL. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAKB310001362025
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
e-Filing Number
07-04-2025
Filing Number
48/2025
Filing Date
19-04-2025
Registration No
48/2025
Registration Date
19-04-2025
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AFZALPUR
Judge
974-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and J.M.F.C. ,AFZALPUR.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAGADEVI W/O SHARANAPPA NAVLEKAR
Adv. Shrishail Patil
Respondent(s)
SUVARNA W/O SOMARAY KUTNOOR
SAVITA W/O CHIDANAND NILOOR
The Branch Manager, Pragati Krishna Grameen Bank, Station Ganagapur
Hearing History
Judge: 974-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and J.M.F.C. ,AFZALPUR.
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 27-02-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 18-02-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 31-01-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: In this partition suit (O.S. No. 48/2025), the court allowed the plaintiff's application to implead Pragati Krishna Grameen Bank (Station Ganagapur) as Defendant No. 3. The plaintiff argued that funds in the grandfather's name held by the bank are subject to the partition claim, and the bank manager's presence is necessary for effectual adjudication as Defendants No. 1 and 2 allegedly colluded with the bank to access the amount. The bank did not appear or object after notice, and the court found the bank's presence essential to the suit's proper resolution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: In this partition suit (O.S. No. 48/2025), the court allowed the plaintiff's application to implead Pragati Krishna Grameen Bank (Station Ganagapur) as Defendant No. 3. The plaintiff argued that funds in the grandfather's name held by the bank are subject to the partition claim, and the bank manager's presence is necessary for effectual adjudication as Defendants No. 1 and 2 allegedly colluded with the bank to access the amount. The bank did not appear or object after notice, and the court found the bank's presence essential to the suit's proper resolution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts