Narmadabai Pandharinath Sonone vs Narayan Laxman Sonone Advocate - SAPKAL V. B. — 700113/2010
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 4. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 16th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHJN060013092010
Next Hearing
16th July 2026
Filing Number
700113/2010
Filing Date
31-07-2010
Registration No
700113/2010
Registration Date
31-07-2010
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Bhokardan
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. BHOKARDAN..
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Narmadabai Pandharinath Sonone
Adv. JADHAV D. S.
Gajanan Pandharinath Sonone
Adv. D.S.Jadhav
Raju Pandharinath Sonone
Adv. D S Jadhav
Suryabhan Ganpat Sonone
Adv. D S Jadhav
Prakash Ganpat Sonone
Adv. D S Jadhav
Respondent(s)
Narayan Laxman Sonone Advocate - SAPKAL V. B.
Prayagbai Rangnath Sonone
Adv. V.B.Sapkal
Vishvnath Rangnath Sonone
Adv. V.B.Sapkal
Ankush Rangnath Sonone
Adv. V.B.Sapkal
Subhash Rangnath Sonone
Adv. V.B.Sapkal
Shobhabai Dnyaneshwar Wagh
Adv. V.B.Sapkal
Harnabai Maruti Wagh(Legal Heir)
Adv. Exp
Shardabai Sahebrao Lakkas
Adv. Exp
Nirmalabai Chandrabhan Kale
Adv. Exp
Rukhamanbai Uttamrao Misal
Adv. EXp
Watsalabai Bala Ambhore
Adv. EXp
Chandrabhagabai Sahebrao Bhonde
Latabai Prakash Sonone
Amol Prakash Sonone
Nilesh Prakash Sonone
Rekha Prakash Sonone
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. BHOKARDAN..
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-06-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 04-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 08-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 25-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. 113/2010 Outcome: The application was partly allowed. The court rejected defendants' requests to frame additional issues regarding whether the properties were ancestral/joint family property and whether the suit was barred by non-joinder of parties, as these were already covered in existing issues. However, one new issue was framed: "Whether suit is within limitation?" Both parties must lead evidence accordingly, and each party bears their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. 113/2010 Outcome: The application was partly allowed. The court rejected defendants' requests to frame additional issues regarding whether the properties were ancestral/joint family property and whether the suit was barred by non-joinder of parties, as these were already covered in existing issues. However, one new issue was framed: "Whether suit is within limitation?" Both parties must lead evidence accordingly, and each party bears their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts