Shubhangi Ramchandra Shinde vs Sulochana Shankar Gadkari — 91/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 10,38. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.

Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)

CNR: MHKO070021462025

Evidence

Next Hearing

16th June 2026

e-Filing Number

03-09-2025

Filing Number

818/2025

Filing Date

03-09-2025

Registration No

91/2025

Registration Date

04-09-2025

Court

Civil Court Sr.Dn. and Jr.Dn. Jaysingpur

Judge

19-Jt. Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Jaysingpur

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 10,38

Petitioner(s)

Shubhangi Ramchandra Shinde

Adv. N. V. Jangam

Respondent(s)

Sulochana Shankar Gadkari

Suman Vilas Gadkari

Varsha Manoj Shah

Lakshmi Vasant Biranje

Hearing History

Judge: 19-Jt. Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Jaysingpur

10-03-2026

Evidence

13-02-2026

Issues

09-02-2026

Order on Exh

05-02-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

02-02-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

Interim Orders

13-02-2026
Order on T.I.
13-02-2026
Order on Exhibit

Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application seeking permission to send sugarcane crops for crushing at a sugar factory. The court found that the plaintiff sought relief regarding 95.33 acres of land sold by Defendant No. 4, which was not the subject matter of the original suit (which concerned 95.34 acres from Defendants 1-3). Additionally, since co-owner Vaibhav Sunil Shinde was not a party to the suit, the plaintiff could not seek relief on his behalf or for his share of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application seeking permission to send sugarcane crops for crushing at a sugar factory. The court found that the plaintiff sought relief regarding 95.33 acres of land sold by Defendant No. 4, which was not the subject matter of the original suit (which concerned 95.34 acres from Defendants 1-3). Additionally, since co-owner Vaibhav Sunil Shinde was not a party to the suit, the plaintiff could not seek relief on his behalf or for his share of the property. 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 Sr.Dn. and Jr.Dn. Jaysingpur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case