Amit Shashikant Patwari vs Sitabai Vishwanath Sawant Advocate - RATHI S.G. — 418/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 12. Status: Compliance. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHJN020016862025
Next Hearing
20th June 2026
e-Filing Number
31-07-2025
Filing Number
1725/2025
Filing Date
31-07-2025
Registration No
418/2025
Registration Date
11-08-2025
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Jalna
Judge
29-2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Amit Shashikant Patwari
Adv. LIKHE D P
Respondent(s)
Sitabai Vishwanath Sawant Advocate - RATHI S.G.
Nasrin Begum Sadat Khan
Asmat begum Sohael Sidhiqui
Shobhabai Bhaskar Chowdhary
Shilpa Suresh Maniyar
Shriti Prashant Ladda Maiden Name Shriti Kisankumar Daga
Kisankumar Mathuradas Daga
Dadasaheb Annasaheb Bhutekar
Hearing History
Judge: 29-2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division
Compliance
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-06-2026 | Compliance |
| 04-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 24-04-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 18-04-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 07-04-2026 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Amit Shashikant Patwari v. Sitabai Vishwanath Sawant & Others (418/2025) Petitioner Amit Patwari filed a suit for specific performance of contract. Defendants 5-7 moved an application under CPC Order VII Rule 11(d) contending the suit was barred by limitation and the cause of action was illusory. The court rejected the defendants' application, holding that the plaintiff adequately disclosed a cause of action in paragraph 19 of the plaint. Since limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence evaluation, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold stage without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to present evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Amit Shashikant Patwari v. Sitabai Vishwanath Sawant & Others (418/2025) Petitioner Amit Patwari filed a suit for specific performance of contract. Defendants 5-7 moved an application under CPC Order VII Rule 11(d) contending the suit was barred by limitation and the cause of action was illusory. The court rejected the defendants' application, holding that the plaintiff adequately disclosed a cause of action in paragraph 19 of the plaint. Since limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence evaluation, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold stage without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to present evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts