Rajendra Shivnath Appa Rajmukut vs Santosh Shantilal Dutonde Advocate - Patil M.G. — 27/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAU110003432021
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
53/2021
Filing Date
25-03-2021
Registration No
27/2021
Registration Date
01-04-2021
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Phulambri
Judge
1-Civil Judge JD and JMFC, Phulambri
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajendra Shivnath Appa Rajmukut
Adv. Kapre A.S.
Respondent(s)
Santosh Shantilal Dutonde Advocate - Patil M.G.
Rameshwar Vidyaram Agarwal
Adv. Kapre A.S.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge JD and JMFC, Phulambri
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 12-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 05-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 15-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 20-11-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS No.27/2021 Rajendra S. Rajmukut v. Santosh Dutonde & Another The court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint with costs of Rs.1,000 payable to defendants. The plaintiff sought to add a mandatory injunction prayer clause to prevent the defendant from continuing construction on disputed land. The court rejected the defendant's res-judicata argument, finding the amendment necessary to effectively implement an earlier granted mandatory injunction order and to resolve the real controversy per CPC Order VI, Rule 17. Plaintiff directed to complete amendment within 14 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS No.27/2021 Rajendra S. Rajmukut v. Santosh Dutonde & Another The court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint with costs of Rs.1,000 payable to defendants. The plaintiff sought to add a mandatory injunction prayer clause to prevent the defendant from continuing construction on disputed land. The court rejected the defendant's res-judicata argument, finding the amendment necessary to effectively implement an earlier granted mandatory injunction order and to resolve the real controversy per CPC Order VI, Rule 17. Plaintiff directed to complete amendment within 14 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts