Prakash Magan Patil Through General Attorney Savita Prakash Patil vs Pravin Suklal Chavhan Advocate - Sonawane Nikhil S. — 300/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 37,39. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHDH070026392023
Next Hearing
20th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1019/2023
Filing Date
16-08-2023
Registration No
300/2023
Registration Date
16-08-2023
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Shirpur
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C.Shirpur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Prakash Magan Patil Through General Attorney Savita Prakash Patil
Adv. Jain H.M.
Respondent(s)
Pravin Suklal Chavhan Advocate - Sonawane Nikhil S.
Dipali Pravin Chavhan
Gramsevak, Grampanchayat, Shingave
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C.Shirpur
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 16-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 22-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 24-11-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 30-10-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The plaintiff's application to amend the plaint by adding a mandatory injunction prayer (in addition to the existing perpetual injunction prayer) was allowed. The court found that the amendment was justified because the defendants constructed a structure adjacent to the plaintiff's window after the suit was instituted, necessitating the additional relief. The plaintiff must file the amended plaint before the next date and pay the requisite court fees and stamp duty; no costs were imposed on either party. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The plaintiff's application to amend the plaint by adding a mandatory injunction prayer (in addition to the existing perpetual injunction prayer) was allowed. The court found that the amendment was justified because the defendants constructed a structure adjacent to the plaintiff's window after the suit was instituted, necessitating the additional relief. The plaintiff must file the amended plaint before the next date and pay the requisite court fees and stamp duty; no costs were imposed on either party. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts