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
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
1000139/2013
Filing Date
25-11-2013
Registration No
1000071/2013
Registration Date
25-11-2013
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Patur
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. Patur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramesh Narayn Andari
Adv. Mankar Mohan Anandrao
Respondent(s)
Gajanan Sidaji Bochri Advocate - Qazi Amjad Ali Sarfaraj Ali
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. Patur
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Amended Plaint
Order on Exh
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Awaiting Objection
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 22-01-2026 | Amended Plaint |
| 05-12-2025 | Order on Exh |
| 31-10-2025 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 19-09-2025 | Awaiting Objection |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts