1- Jija Prakash Bugade vs 1- Prakash Dhondiba Bugade Advocate - A. M. Bamane — 37/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Hearing on NFL Appln.. Next hearing: 18th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO100003572025
Next Hearing
18th July 2026
Filing Number
47/2025
Filing Date
23-01-2025
Registration No
37/2025
Registration Date
07-03-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Gadhinglaj
Judge
3-Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn, and J.M.F.C. Gadhinglaj
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
1- Jija Prakash Bugade
Adv. S. M. Gurav
2- Priyanka Prakash Bugade
Respondent(s)
1- Prakash Dhondiba Bugade Advocate - A. M. Bamane
2-Pradip Prakash Bugade
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn, and J.M.F.C. Gadhinglaj
Hearing on NFL Appln.
Argument on Exh.____Ready
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-06-2026 | Hearing on NFL Appln. |
| 16-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 16-02-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 12-01-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 16-12-2025 | W.S. and Say |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 37/2025 Outcome: The respondents' application to set aside the order requiring them to file a statement of defence (kaifiyat) was PARTIALLY GRANTED. The court accepted their application on condition that they pay Rs. 200 as cost to the petitioners, and ordered their statement of defence to be filed on record. The court found the respondents' delay in filing their defence justified due to health issues and educational commitments, but imposed the cost penalty for the delay in complying with the prescribed timeline for filing their response to the lawsuit concerning property partition and maintenance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 37/2025 Outcome: The respondents' application to set aside the order requiring them to file a statement of defence (kaifiyat) was PARTIALLY GRANTED. The court accepted their application on condition that they pay Rs. 200 as cost to the petitioners, and ordered their statement of defence to be filed on record. The court found the respondents' delay in filing their defence justified due to health issues and educational commitments, but imposed the cost penalty for the delay in complying with the prescribed timeline for filing their response to the lawsuit concerning property partition and maintenance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts