Ramdas S/o Dhondu Kewat vs Sakharam S/o Dheklu Kambale Advocate - A. M. Patel — 2/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHGO050000432021
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
6/2021
Filing Date
19-01-2021
Registration No
2/2021
Registration Date
19-01-2021
Court
Civil Court Junior Division ,Sadakarjuni
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And JMFC Sadak Arjuni
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramdas S/o Dhondu Kewat
Adv. U.S.Meshrams
Mulchand S/o Dhondu Kewat
Adv. U.S. Meshram
Jayabai Baliram mankar
Adv. U.S. Meshram
Respondent(s)
Sakharam S/o Dheklu Kambale Advocate - A. M. Patel
Uttam S/o Dheklu Kambale
Ganpat S/o Dheklu Kambale
Sushama Santosh Bhalekar
Guddu Goma Shende
Kaushalya Wd/o Shiriram Kambale
Motiram Shriram Kambale
Sunil Shriram Kambale
Geetabai Ramdas Meshram
Shobha Sewak Gedam
Vaishali Wd/o Natiram Kamble
Janvi D/o Natiram Kamble
Aryan S/o Natiram Kamble
Vithabai Ramesh Walthare
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And JMFC Sadak Arjuni
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 28-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 15-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 04-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 20-03-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the plaintiffs' application to amend the plaint in a partition and separate possession suit. The amendment corrects the name of defendant no. 5 from "Guddu Goma Shende" to "Pradip Goma Meshram," which was an inadvertent mistake that prevented proper service of summons. The plaintiffs were granted 14 days to file the amended plaint on record, with the court finding the amendment necessary, formal in nature, and causing no prejudice to defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the plaintiffs' application to amend the plaint in a partition and separate possession suit. The amendment corrects the name of defendant no. 5 from "Guddu Goma Shende" to "Pradip Goma Meshram," which was an inadvertent mistake that prevented proper service of summons. The plaintiffs were granted 14 days to file the amended plaint on record, with the court finding the amendment necessary, formal in nature, and causing no prejudice to 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