Mr Suraj Raosaheb Mukre etc.01 vs Babu Shamu Pantkare etc. — 26/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Steps. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO130001782024
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
e-Filing Number
29-01-2024
Filing Number
51/2024
Filing Date
31-01-2024
Registration No
26/2024
Registration Date
02-02-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Kagal
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. AND J.M.F.C.Kagal.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mr Suraj Raosaheb Mukre etc.01
Adv. Sagar R. Patil
Sunil Raosaheb Mukre
Respondent(s)
Babu Shamu Pantkare etc.
Vinayak Shivaji Awle
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. AND J.M.F.C.Kagal.
Steps
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Steps |
| 16-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 16-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 15-01-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 05-12-2025 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 26/2024 Defendant No. 2 applied for rejection of the plaintiff's plaint, contending it was undervalued and proper court fees were not paid. The court rejected this application, holding that since the plaintiff was not a party to the impugned Sale Deed dated 24/08/2021, he properly paid court fees under section 6iv(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act (applicable to non-parties seeking declaration of avoidance), rather than section 6iv(ha) (for parties to the deed). The application was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 26/2024 Defendant No. 2 applied for rejection of the plaintiff's plaint, contending it was undervalued and proper court fees were not paid. The court rejected this application, holding that since the plaintiff was not a party to the impugned Sale Deed dated 24/08/2021, he properly paid court fees under section 6iv(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act (applicable to non-parties seeking declaration of avoidance), rather than section 6iv(ha) (for parties to the deed). The application was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts