Kailas Harakchand Soni vs Gopal Harakchand Saini — 104/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Awaiting Summons. Next hearing: 01st August 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHJN090008742025
Next Hearing
01st August 2026
e-Filing Number
20-09-2025
Filing Number
203/2025
Filing Date
26-09-2025
Registration No
104/2025
Registration Date
26-09-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Badnapur
Judge
5-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.Badnapur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kailas Harakchand Soni
Adv. MAGRE SHAM JAIWANTRAO
Badriprasad Harakchand Soni
Adv. MAGRE SHAM JAIWANTRAO
Respondent(s)
Gopal Harakchand Saini
Ganesh Rohidas Jadhav
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.Badnapur
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 06-04-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 16-03-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 23-02-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 18-02-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
Interim Orders
Case Summary - 104/2025 (Kailas v. Gopal) The petitioners sought to amend the suit to include Ganesh Rohidas Jadhav as the second respondent and to ratify sale deed no. 439/2026, as the respondent had sold the property during the litigation's pendency. The court issued notice to respondents, but it was not served/returned. The petitioners' application for amendment was allowed. The court held that granting the amendment was necessary since the case is still in the primary stage and evidence has not yet commenced. Order: Petition allowed. Petitioners permitted to file necessary amendments and sale deed ratification on court record within stipulated time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary - 104/2025 (Kailas v. Gopal) The petitioners sought to amend the suit to include Ganesh Rohidas Jadhav as the second respondent and to ratify sale deed no. 439/2026, as the respondent had sold the property during the litigation's pendency. The court issued notice to respondents, but it was not served/returned. The petitioners' application for amendment was allowed. The court held that granting the amendment was necessary since the case is still in the primary stage and evidence has not yet commenced. Order: Petition allowed. Petitioners permitted to file necessary amendments and sale deed ratification on court record within stipulated time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts