Alka Javahar Bhalagat vs Amrutlaa Bhagchad Gundecha Advocate - Gawali N. D. — 239/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38,. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAH230006112024
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
e-Filing Number
23-09-2024
Filing Number
482/2024
Filing Date
24-09-2024
Registration No
239/2024
Registration Date
27-09-2024
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Shrigonda
Judge
3-2nd- Jt Civil Judge S D Shrigonda
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Alka Javahar Bhalagat
Adv. Kulkarni N. P.
Respondent(s)
Amrutlaa Bhagchad Gundecha Advocate - Gawali N. D.
Kamlesh Tarachand Gandhi
Asmita Kishor Gugale
Subham Kishor Gugale
Prachi Kishor Gugale
Lilabai Popatlal Gugale
Dadasaheb Babasaheb Mohite
Mohan Bapurao Bagal
Uttam Bapurao Bagal
Namdeo Bapurao Bagal
Keshav Mohan Bagal
Sarika Keshav Bagal
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd- Jt Civil Judge S D Shrigonda
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 09-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 23-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 02-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 19-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: Defendant No. 7's application to reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(b) and (c) of the CPC, 1908, on grounds of improper valuation of relief and insufficient court fees, has been rejected. The court found that the plaintiff properly valued the relief as partition (main relief) rather than declaration (consequential relief), and adequate stamp duty was paid accordingly under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: Defendant No. 7's application to reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(b) and (c) of the CPC, 1908, on grounds of improper valuation of relief and insufficient court fees, has been rejected. The court found that the plaintiff properly valued the relief as partition (main relief) rather than declaration (consequential relief), and adequate stamp duty was paid accordingly under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts