Kalpana Gokul Pawar vs Atmaram Baburao Bhosale Advocate - Jadhav M.V. — 1600446/2013
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section SuitforPartationandSeparatePossession. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHBI150010392013
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
1600504/2013
Filing Date
08-11-2013
Registration No
1600446/2013
Registration Date
08-11-2013
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Patoda
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. AND J.M.F.C. PATODA.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kalpana Gokul Pawar
Adv. Doke N.S.
Respondent(s)
Atmaram Baburao Bhosale Advocate - Jadhav M.V.
Kusum Atmaram Bhosale
Angad Atmaram Bhosale
Urmila Swami Kokane
Ramdas Baburao Bhosale
Prakash Baburao Bhosale
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. AND J.M.F.C. PATODA.
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 26-02-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 22-01-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 11-12-2025 | Defence Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint in this partition suit, permitting her to modify property descriptions, add necessary explanations regarding sold portions, and include her half-sister as a party. The amendment was granted despite being filed after the plaintiff's evidence concluded, as the court found it necessary to determine the real controversy and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, with no prejudice to defendants. The plaintiff was ordered to pay ₹600 in costs and supply copies of the amended plaint to the court and defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint in this partition suit, permitting her to modify property descriptions, add necessary explanations regarding sold portions, and include her half-sister as a party. The amendment was granted despite being filed after the plaintiff's evidence concluded, as the court found it necessary to determine the real controversy and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, with no prejudice to defendants. The plaintiff was ordered to pay ₹600 in costs and supply copies of the amended plaint to the court and defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts