Sudhakar asmanrao maske (H.C.Time bound) vs Tirthraj rambhau jaykar Advocate - UDHAN VISHAL V. — 333/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHJN040026532024

Defence Evidence

Next Hearing

15th June 2026

e-Filing Number

11-11-2024

Filing Number

1137/2024

Filing Date

19-11-2024

Registration No

333/2024

Registration Date

19-11-2024

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Ambad

Judge

6-Jt. CJJD and JMFC COURT AMBAD

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 39

Petitioner(s)

Sudhakar asmanrao maske (H.C.Time bound)

Adv. KULKARNI KEDAR RAOSAHEB

Respondent(s)

Tirthraj rambhau jaykar Advocate - UDHAN VISHAL V.

Ashabai tirthraj jaykar

Dadabhau rambhau jaykar

Rahul tirthraj jaykar

Pramod tirthraj jaykar

Gaurav dadabhau jaykar

Anjana dadabhau jaykar

Somnath rambhau jaykar

Hearing History

Judge: 6-Jt. CJJD and JMFC COURT AMBAD

10-06-2026

Defence Evidence

08-06-2026

Defence Evidence

07-05-2026

Defence Evidence

04-05-2026

Defence Evidence

02-05-2026

Defence Evidence

Interim Orders

13-01-2025
Order on T.I.
29-01-2026
Evidence
04-02-2026
Evidence
18-02-2026
Evidence
24-04-2026
Order on Exhibit

Case 333/2024 - Sudhakar Asmanrao Maske v. Tirthraj Rambhau Jaykar & Others Summary: The petitioner's application seeking an order to file an original agreement dated 27.03.2018 was dismissed. The court found that the original document could not be authenticated without the signatory's testimony, and since witness examination had not commenced, the court could not determine the authenticity of the agreement. The petition was dismissed as frivolous and filed only for delay tactics. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case 333/2024 - Sudhakar Asmanrao Maske v. Tirthraj Rambhau Jaykar & Others Summary: The petitioner's application seeking an order to file an original agreement dated 27.03.2018 was dismissed. The court found that the original document could not be authenticated without the signatory's testimony, and since witness examination had not commenced, the court could not determine the authenticity of the agreement. The petition was dismissed as frivolous and filed only for delay tactics. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Ambad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case