Sitadevi Harivansha Bhattad vs Shevantabai Kacharu Khobragade Advocate - N.B.Gadpale — 28/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Status: Reply/Say. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
R.C.A. - Civil Appeal
CNR: MHGA010003332016
Next Hearing
20th June 2026
Filing Number
139/2016
Filing Date
29-04-2016
Registration No
28/2016
Registration Date
29-04-2016
Court
District and Session Court , Gadchiroli
Judge
1-Principal District And Sessions Judge Gadchiroli.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sitadevi Harivansha Bhattad
Adv. D.A.Dhodare
Respondent(s)
Shevantabai Kacharu Khobragade Advocate - N.B.Gadpale
Suryabhan Kachru Khobragade
Adv. B.D.Uke
Dayaram Kachruji Khobragade
Jijabai Kachruji Khobragad
Adv. B.D.Uke
Mangala Kachruju Khobragad
Adv. B.D.Uke
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District And Sessions Judge Gadchiroli.
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 08-04-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 21-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 30-01-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
In Regular Civil Appeal No.28 of 2016, the Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli allowed the appellant's amendment application (Exh.36) on July 19, 2025. The appellant sought to correct inadvertent typing errors and date mistakes in her earlier application for condonation of delay regarding abatement and legal representatives of deceased respondents. Though respondents opposed the amendment, claiming deliberate misstatements, the court found the errors to be merely formal typing mistakes with no intent to mislead, and permitted the amendments to proceed before the next hearing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
In Regular Civil Appeal No.28 of 2016, the Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli allowed the appellant's amendment application (Exh.36) on July 19, 2025. The appellant sought to correct inadvertent typing errors and date mistakes in her earlier application for condonation of delay regarding abatement and legal representatives of deceased respondents. Though respondents opposed the amendment, claiming deliberate misstatements, the court found the errors to be merely formal typing mistakes with no intent to mislead, and permitted the amendments to proceed before the next hearing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts