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
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
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
Evidence
Issues
Order on Exh
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts