Bhausaheb Namdeo Pathade vs Baban Namdeo Pathade Advocate - Wakale S.S. — 29/2025
Case under Hindu Succession Act Section 6. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAU090001962025
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
e-Filing Number
20-01-2025
Filing Number
76/2025
Filing Date
20-01-2025
Registration No
29/2025
Registration Date
22-01-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Paithan
Judge
5-3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. AND J.M.F.C. PAITHAN
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhausaheb Namdeo Pathade
Adv. MULEY VIJAYKUMAR GULABRAO
Kamalgaon Bhausaheb Pathade
Adv. MULEY VIJAYKUMAR GULABRAO
Krushna Bhausaheb Pathade
Adv. MULEY VIJAYKUMAR GULABRAO
Sangita Gopichand Mapari
Adv. MULEY VIJAYKUMAR GULABRAO
Yogita Ravindra Shelke
Adv. MULEY VIJAYKUMAR GULABRAO
Anita Rajesh Shinde
Adv. MULEY VIJAYKUMAR GULABRAO
Manisha Surendra Jagtap
Adv. MULEY VIJAYKUMAR GULABRAO
Respondent(s)
Baban Namdeo Pathade Advocate - Wakale S.S.
Sumanbai Baban Pathade
Dr Rameshwar Baban Pathade
Kalpna Kailas Kuber
Ashwini Vasant Shinde
Ashok Baburao Bhand
Badrinath Baburao Bhand
Shivaji Vinayak Mapari
Gopichand Vinayak Mapari
Kaura Tulashiram Kuber
Meera Ashok Shelke
Hearing History
Judge: 5-3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. AND J.M.F.C. PAITHAN
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 30-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 16-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 12-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 16-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case 29/2025 Summary: The court issued an injunction restraining Respondent No. 13 from selling disputed ancestral property or constructing on half of the vacant plot, and ordered the property to be maintained in its present condition. The court found that the property was ancestral joint family property belonging to both the petitioners and respondents, and that Respondent No. 13's unauthorized sale would prejudice the petitioners' rights in the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 29/2025 Summary: The court issued an injunction restraining Respondent No. 13 from selling disputed ancestral property or constructing on half of the vacant plot, and ordered the property to be maintained in its present condition. The court found that the property was ancestral joint family property belonging to both the petitioners and respondents, and that Respondent No. 13's unauthorized sale would prejudice the petitioners' rights in the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts