Raju S/o Mitthu Holkar vs Kantabai W/o Mitthu Holkar Advocate - Y.S. Pachlore — 100/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 38. Status: Compliance. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAU100005672024
Next Hearing
20th June 2026
e-Filing Number
18-06-2024
Filing Number
197/2024
Filing Date
19-06-2024
Registration No
100/2024
Registration Date
19-06-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Khultabad
Judge
1-JT. CIVIL JUDGE JD AND JMFC KHULTABAD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Raju S/o Mitthu Holkar
Adv. UBALE PUNJARAM BAJIRAO
Respondent(s)
Kantabai W/o Mitthu Holkar Advocate - Y.S. Pachlore
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JT. CIVIL JUDGE JD AND JMFC KHULTABAD
Compliance
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Compliance |
| 12-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 26-02-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 05-02-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 29-01-2026 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
Case 100/2024 Summary: The court granted Raju S/o Mitthu Holkar's petition to be included as a necessary party in the suit against Kantabai W/o Mitthu Holkar. The petitioner claimed that Respondent No. 1 sold disputed property to him based on a sale deed dated 27.03.2025 for ₹2,97,000, but the respondent concealed this transaction from the court. The court found the petitioner to be an essential party and directed him to be added as Respondent No. 3. The case was adjourned for the respondent to file a proper reply. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 100/2024 Summary: The court granted Raju S/o Mitthu Holkar's petition to be included as a necessary party in the suit against Kantabai W/o Mitthu Holkar. The petitioner claimed that Respondent No. 1 sold disputed property to him based on a sale deed dated 27.03.2025 for ₹2,97,000, but the respondent concealed this transaction from the court. The court found the petitioner to be an essential party and directed him to be added as Respondent No. 3. The case was adjourned for the respondent to file a proper reply. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts