Vilas Bhaskar More vs Bhaskar Motiram More And 5 Advocate - Bhavsar E. B. — 53/2023
Case under Specific Relief (amendment) Act Section 39. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHDH040008862023
Next Hearing
20th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
299/2023
Filing Date
16-12-2023
Registration No
53/2023
Registration Date
16-12-2023
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Dondaicha
Judge
3-Joint Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C., Dondaicha
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vilas Bhaskar More
Adv. Shah Manishkumar G.
Respondent(s)
Bhaskar Motiram More And 5 Advocate - Bhavsar E. B.
Gokulbai Bhaskar More
Ashok Bhaskar More
Kalpanabai Ashok More
Narendra Bhaskar More
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Joint Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C., Dondaicha
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Additional W.S.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 27-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 09-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 26-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 12-02-2026 | Additional W.S. |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY The Court rejected the defendants' application to dismiss the plaint for insufficient court fees. The plaintiff paid appropriate court fees for a declaration and injunction claim under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act Section 6(iv)(j), as he was not a party to the disputed sale deed. However, the Court found the plaint's valuation clause vague and directed the plaintiff to amend paragraph 8 within 15 days to specify the legal provisions under which the suit valuation was determined, in compliance with Order 7 Rule 1(i) of the CPC (Bombay Amendment). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY The Court rejected the defendants' application to dismiss the plaint for insufficient court fees. The plaintiff paid appropriate court fees for a declaration and injunction claim under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act Section 6(iv)(j), as he was not a party to the disputed sale deed. However, the Court found the plaint's valuation clause vague and directed the plaintiff to amend paragraph 8 within 15 days to specify the legal provisions under which the suit valuation was determined, in compliance with Order 7 Rule 1(i) of the CPC (Bombay Amendment). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts