1. Smt. Bharati Prakash Ingale Etc. 3 vs 1. Shri. Channabasdevaru Guruprabhuswami Viraktmath @ Prabhu Ayya Pardeshi Advocate - B. B. Ghatge — 29/2020

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 40. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 07th July 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO100002112020

Argument on Exh.____Ready

Next Hearing

07th July 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

90/2020

Filing Date

30-01-2020

Registration No

29/2020

Registration Date

31-01-2020

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Gadhinglaj

Judge

2-2nd Civil Judge Jr.Dn.and J.M.F.C.,Gadhinglaj

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 40

Petitioner(s)

1. Smt. Bharati Prakash Ingale Etc. 3

Adv. Swati N. Rangnekar

Amit Prakash Ingale

Ranjit Prakash Ingale

Respondent(s)

1. Shri. Channabasdevaru Guruprabhuswami Viraktmath @ Prabhu Ayya Pardeshi Advocate - B. B. Ghatge

Hearing History

Judge: 2-2nd Civil Judge Jr.Dn.and J.M.F.C.,Gadhinglaj

23-04-2026

Argument on Exh.____Ready

10-03-2026

Argument on Exh.____Ready

24-12-2025

Argument on Exh.____Ready

15-10-2025

Argument on Exh.____Ready

16-09-2025

Argument on Exh.____Ready

Interim Orders

30-10-2023
Order on Exhibit

Summary The civil court order (dated 30/10/2023) partially allows the plaintiff's case against Defendant No. 1. The court awards the plaintiff Rs. 500 (in lieu of court fees) and directs Defendant No. 1 to pay the plaintiff an additional amount as per the court's assessment regarding the disputed claim. Defendant No. 1 is further required to furnish security and comply with the court's instructions regarding restitution of the disputed property/asset. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The civil court order (dated 30/10/2023) partially allows the plaintiff's case against Defendant No. 1. The court awards the plaintiff Rs. 500 (in lieu of court fees) and directs Defendant No. 1 to pay the plaintiff an additional amount as per the court's assessment regarding the disputed claim. Defendant No. 1 is further required to furnish security and comply with the court's instructions regarding restitution of the disputed property/asset. 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 and Criminal Court, Gadhinglaj All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case