Deepakkumar Narayan Sharma vs Rajkukmar Narayan Sharma Advocate - Ingale S.T. — 1700016/2012
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 6. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHAK070001062012
Next Hearing
07th April 2026
Filing Number
1700016/2012
Filing Date
06-02-2012
Registration No
1700016/2012
Registration Date
12-07-2001
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Balapur
Judge
2-Jt.Civil Judge J.D. Balapur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Deepakkumar Narayan Sharma
Adv. Jagtap A.P.
Respondent(s)
Rajkukmar Narayan Sharma Advocate - Ingale S.T.
Santoshkumari Narayan Sharma
Sau.Punam Rajkumar Sharma
Sau.Anita Bharat Sharma
Gulam Rasul Sk.Farid
Abdul Kadar Sk.Farid
Abdul Rauf Sk.Haidar
Ashvinkumar Pursotamdas Vaishnav
Mohd.Saddique Abdul Rafiq
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt.Civil Judge J.D. Balapur
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 03-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court partially allowed the petition (Misc. Case No. 204/2012) filed for amendment of a 20-year-old civil suit concerning property disputes. The court granted permission to correct deficiencies in the property descriptions in the suit documents, on the condition that a cost of Rs. 2,000 is deposited by the petitioner. Of this amount, Rs. 1,000 goes to the respondent and Rs. 1,000 to the Maharashtra Government treasury. The court criticized the plaintiff's counsel for delays in rectifying procedural defects despite prior orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court partially allowed the petition (Misc. Case No. 204/2012) filed for amendment of a 20-year-old civil suit concerning property disputes. The court granted permission to correct deficiencies in the property descriptions in the suit documents, on the condition that a cost of Rs. 2,000 is deposited by the petitioner. Of this amount, Rs. 1,000 goes to the respondent and Rs. 1,000 to the Maharashtra Government treasury. The court criticized the plaintiff's counsel for delays in rectifying procedural defects despite prior orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts