Appasaheb Bapurao Maske vs Lalit Ganesh Khalapure Advocate - LIMBULKAR R.L. — 188/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O39R1,2. Status: Order on Exh. Next hearing: 29th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHJN050017332023
Next Hearing
29th June 2026
e-Filing Number
14-12-2023
Filing Number
386/2023
Filing Date
16-12-2023
Registration No
188/2023
Registration Date
19-12-2023
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Partur
Judge
8-Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C., Partur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Appasaheb Bapurao Maske
Adv. BAGAL J. P.
Respondent(s)
Lalit Ganesh Khalapure Advocate - LIMBULKAR R.L.
Digvijay Ganesh Khalapure
Meerabai Vithal Vatane
Adv. LIMBULKAR R.L.
Rushikesh Bhimrao Khalapure
Adv. LIMBULKAR R.L.
Hearing History
Judge: 8-Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C., Partur
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 16-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 10-02-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 08-01-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 15-12-2025 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. 188/2023 Outcome: Application rejected. The court rejected defendants' application to dismiss the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner Appasaheb Bapurao Maske sought a declaration that two sale deeds (1731/23 and 1732/23) do not create a road over his properties. The court found the plaintiff paid adequate court fees under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fee Act (as a non-party seeking relief regarding the documents), had proper jurisdiction, and the necessary parties were not required since no road was being claimed. Application dismissed on 25/02/2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. 188/2023 Outcome: Application rejected. The court rejected defendants' application to dismiss the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner Appasaheb Bapurao Maske sought a declaration that two sale deeds (1731/23 and 1732/23) do not create a road over his properties. The court found the plaintiff paid adequate court fees under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fee Act (as a non-party seeking relief regarding the documents), had proper jurisdiction, and the necessary parties were not required since no road was being claimed. Application dismissed on 25/02/2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts