Rukhamabai Trimbak Dhurandhar vs Samadhan Sampat Dhurandhar — 22/2025

Case under Bombay Regulation Act,1827 Section 2. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.

Evidence Part Heard Next hearing 17-Jun-2026

Civil M.A.

CNR: MHBU160004762025

e-Filing Number

16-04-2025

Filing Number

91/2025

Filing Date

19-Apr-2025

Registration No

22/2025

Registration Date

19-Apr-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Motala

Judge

2-Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

Last updated 20-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bombay Regulation Act,1827 Section 2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rukhamabai Trimbak Dhurandhar

    Adv. Sonune PS

  2. 2.Suryabhan Trimbak Dhurandhar

    Adv. KSHIRSAGAR MILIND SURESH

  3. 3.Sumanbai Vijay Wakode

    Adv. KSHIRSAGAR MILIND SURESH

  4. 4.Prakash Ramchandra Tayde

    Adv. KSHIRSAGAR MILIND SURESH

  5. 5.Kamina Bhimrao Tayde

    Adv. KSHIRSAGAR MILIND SURESH

  6. 6.Ravindra Bhimrao Tayde

    Adv. KSHIRSAGAR MILIND SURESH

  7. 7.Gautam Bhimrao Tayde

    Adv. KSHIRSAGAR MILIND SURESH

  8. 8.Sunita Shamrao Tayde

    Adv. KSHIRSAGAR MILIND SURESH

  9. 9.Sandeep Shamrao Tayde

    Adv. KSHIRSAGAR MILIND SURESH

  10. 10.Shubham Shamrao Tayde

    Adv. KSHIRSAGAR MILIND SURESH

  11. 11.Aruna Devidas Wakode

    Adv. KSHIRSAGAR MILIND SURESH

  12. 12.Shila Hindurao Kambale

    Adv. KSHIRSAGAR MILIND SURESH

  13. 13.Panchfula Prakash Suradkar

    Adv. KSHIRSAGAR MILIND SURESH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Samadhan Sampat Dhurandhar

  2. 2.Ramakant Sampat Dhurandhar

  3. 3.Nirmala Udaybhan Dhurandhar

Case History

  1. 17-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 29-Apr-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  7. 02-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary: The application filed by Respondent No. 2 to set aside the "no say order" dated 07/01/2026 is allowed. The court found that Respondent No. 2's reasons for failing to file his response within the prescribed time (unavailability of important documents) were convincing, and that denying him the right to defend would prejudice him. Respondent No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 500 as costs to the applicants, after which the previous "no say order" will be set aside and his response will be taken on record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 02-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  9. 18-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  10. 04-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  11. 07-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  12. 22-Dec-2025

    W.S. and Say

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  13. 24-Nov-2025

    W.S. and Say

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  14. 15-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  15. 15-Oct-2025

    Appearance

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  16. 17-Sep-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  17. 03-Sep-2025

    Steps

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  18. 18-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  19. 15-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  20. 23-Jun-2025

    Hearing

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  21. 09-Jun-2025

    Steps

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC Motala

  22. 23-Apr-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  23. 23-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 19-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 22/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The application filed by Respondent No. 2 to set aside the "no say order" dated 07/01/2026 is allowed. The court found that Respondent No. 2's reasons for failing to file his response within the prescribed time (unavailability of important documents) were convincing, and that denying him the right to defend would prejudice him. Respondent No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 500 as costs to the applicants, after which the previous "no say order" will be set aside and his response will be taken on record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case