Ramesh Narayn Andari vs Gajanan Sidaji Bochri Advocate - Qazi Amjad Ali Sarfaraj Ali — 1000071/2013
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 0. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHAK100006572013
Filing Number
1000139/2013
Filing Date
25-Nov-2013
Registration No
1000071/2013
Registration Date
25-Nov-2013
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Patur
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. Patur
Last updated 25-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ramesh Narayn Andari
Adv. Mankar Mohan Anandrao
Respondent(s)
-
1.Gajanan Sidaji Bochri Advocate - Qazi Amjad Ali Sarfaraj Ali
Case History
-
10-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
22-Jan-2026
Amended Plaint
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
05-Dec-2025
Order on Exh
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
31-Oct-2025
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
19-Sep-2025
Awaiting Objection
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
31-Jul-2025
Hearing
Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
24-Jul-2025
Awaiting Objection
Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
21-Jun-2025
Awaiting Objection
Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
04-Apr-2025
Report
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
21-Feb-2025
Report
-
17-Jan-2025
Report
-
07-Dec-2024
Report
-
08-Nov-2024
Report
-
20-Sep-2024
Report
-
22-Aug-2024
Report
-
18-Jul-2024
Report
-
28-Jun-2024
Report
-
03-May-2024
Compliance
-
05-Apr-2024
Compliance
-
15-Mar-2024
Order on Exh
-
09-Feb-2024
Order on Exh
-
12-Jan-2024
Order on Exh
-
07-Dec-2023
Order on Exh
-
20-Oct-2023
Argument on Exh.____Ready
-
15-Sep-2023
Argument on Exh.____Ready
-
04-Aug-2023
Argument on Exh.____Ready
-
23-Jun-2023
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
-
15-Apr-2023
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
-
03-Mar-2023
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
-
03-Feb-2023
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
-
06-Jan-2023
Evidence
-
29-Nov-2022
Evidence
-
14-Oct-2022
Evidence
-
02-Sep-2022
Evidence Part Heard
-
15-Jul-2022
Evidence Part Heard
-
10-Jun-2022
Evidence Part Heard
-
07-May-2022
Order
-
25-Mar-2022
Order
-
12-Mar-2022
Order
-
18-Feb-2022
Order
-
21-Jan-2022
Order
-
11-Dec-2021
Order
-
10-Dec-2021
Order
-
13-Nov-2021
Order
-
29-Oct-2021
Order
-
01-Oct-2021
Evidence
-
03-Sep-2021
Evidence
-
09-Aug-2021
Evidence
-
05-Jul-2021
Evidence
-
09-Jun-2021
Documents
-
09-Apr-2021
Documents
-
25-Mar-2021
Documents
-
29-Jan-2021
Documents
-
14-Jan-2021
Documents
-
08-Dec-2020
Issues
-
21-Nov-2020
Issues
-
03-Nov-2020
Issues
-
27-Oct-2020
Issues
-
15-Oct-2020
Issues
-
08-Oct-2020
Issues
-
05-Oct-2020
Issues
-
30-Sep-2020
Issues
-
25-Sep-2020
Issues
-
22-Sep-2020
Issues
-
21-Sep-2020
Issues
-
21-Aug-2020
Issues
-
16-Jul-2020
Issues
-
30-Apr-2020
Issues
-
24-Feb-2020
Issues
-
21-Feb-2020
Issues
-
17-Jan-2020
Issues
-
20-Dec-2019
Issues
-
29-Nov-2019
Issues
-
07-Nov-2019
Issues
-
20-Sep-2019
Issues
-
22-Aug-2019
Issues
-
17-Jul-2019
Issues
-
28-Jun-2019
Issues
-
06-Jun-2019
Issues
-
20-Apr-2019
Issues
-
18-Apr-2019
Issues
-
15-Mar-2019
Issues
-
17-Jan-2019
Hearing
-
15-Nov-2018
Hearing
-
12-Oct-2018
Hearing
-
10-Aug-2018
Hearing
-
28-Jun-2018
Hearing
-
06-Apr-2018
Hearing
-
08-Feb-2018
Hearing
-
06-Jan-2018
Hearing
-
16-Dec-2017
Hearing
-
08-Dec-2017
Hearing
-
18-Nov-2017
Hearing
-
22-Sep-2017
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Summary: The court allowed the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. The amendment sought to clarify the property boundaries and add a corrected map showing a 3x7 ft lane belonging to the plaintiff, along with a claim for mandatory injunction against the defendant's unauthorized wall construction. The court found the amendment was just, reasonable, would assist in determining the real question in controversy, and would not change the nature of the suit, while the defendant would retain full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
22-Sep-2017
Hearing
-
08-Sep-2017
Hearing
-
04-Aug-2017
Hearing
-
20-Jul-2017
Hearing
-
15-Jun-2017
Hearing
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
09-Jun-2017
Hearing
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
21-Apr-2017
Hearing
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
31-Mar-2017
Hearing
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
09-Mar-2017
Hearing
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
12-Jan-2017
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
18-Nov-2016
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
14-Oct-2016
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
17-Sep-2016
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
05-Aug-2016
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
15-Jul-2016
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
18-Jun-2016
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
01-Apr-2016
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
25-Feb-2016
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
12-Feb-2016
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
08-Jan-2016
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
19-Dec-2015
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
19-Nov-2015
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
05-Oct-2015
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
24-Jun-2015
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
18-Mar-2015
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
19-Jan-2015
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
24-Nov-2014
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
08-Oct-2014
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
13-Aug-2014
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
20-Jun-2014
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
07-Apr-2014
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
24-Feb-2014
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
03-Jan-2014
Issues
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
02-Jan-2014
Hearing
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
30-Dec-2013
Hearing
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
20-Dec-2013
Hearing
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
19-Dec-2013
Hearing
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
18-Dec-2013
Hearing
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
16-Dec-2013
Hearing
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
10-Dec-2013
Hearing
Civil Judge J.D. Patur
-
28-Nov-2013
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Nov-2013
Case filed
Registration No. 1000071/2013
Summary: The court allowed the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. The amendment sought to clarify the property boundaries and add a corrected map showing a 3x7 ft lane belonging to the plaintiff, along with a claim for mandatory injunction against the defendant's unauthorized wall construction. The court found the amendment was just, reasonable, would assist in determining the real question in controversy, and would not change the nature of the suit, while the defendant would retain full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts