Sunil Ramdas Banubakode vs Anil Motiram Chaudhari Advocate - SUKHSOHALE N P — 7/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section SUIT FORM PERMANENT AND PERPETUAL INJUNCTION,APPLICATION UO 39 RULE 1 AND 2 RW SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR GRANT OF TI. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 04th April 2026.

Written Statement Next hearing 04-Apr-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit

CNR: MHAK090005302025

e-Filing Number

01-03-2025

Filing Number

132/2025

Filing Date

01-Mar-2025

Registration No

7/2025

Registration Date

01-Mar-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Murtijapur

Judge

1-Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

Last updated 25-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section SUIT FORM PERMANENT AND PERPETUAL INJUNCTION,APPLICATION UO 39 RULE 1 AND 2 RW SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR GRANT OF TI

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sunil Ramdas Banubakode

    Adv. DESHMUKH D L

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Anil Motiram Chaudhari Advocate - SUKHSOHALE N P

  2. 2.Pramila Harichandra Chaudhari

  3. 3.Madhuri Praful Thakre

Case History

  1. 04-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  4. 20-Feb-2026

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  5. 10-Feb-2026

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  6. 22-Jan-2026

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  7. 24-Dec-2025

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  8. 09-Dec-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: RCS No.7/2025 Outcome: The court allowed the plaintiff's application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The suit's nature was converted from seeking permanent injunction to seeking declaration and possession of the property. Two necessary parties (the original vendors) were added as defendants, and the plaintiff was permitted to file the amended plaint within 15 days, with the existing defendant given 30 days to file an additional written statement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  9. 09-Dec-2025

    Amended Plaint

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  10. 12-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  11. 15-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  12. 24-Sep-2025

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  13. 26-Aug-2025

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  14. 23-Jul-2025

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  15. 08-Jul-2025

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  16. 20-Jun-2025

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  17. 09-Apr-2025

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  18. 17-Mar-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur

  19. 03-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 01-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 7/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS No.7/2025 Outcome: The court allowed the plaintiff's application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The suit's nature was converted from seeking permanent injunction to seeking declaration and possession of the property. Two necessary parties (the original vendors) were added as defendants, and the plaintiff was permitted to file the amended plaint within 15 days, with the existing defendant given 30 days to file an additional written statement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case