Sarpanch Grampanchayat, Hanbarwadi vs Pandurang Mallavva Kengar etc. — 60/2024
Case under Specific Relief (Amendment) Act Section 37. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO130003622024
Next Hearing
09th July 2026
e-Filing Number
01-03-2024
Filing Number
99/2024
Filing Date
01-03-2024
Registration No
60/2024
Registration Date
05-03-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Kagal
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. AND J.M.F.C.Kagal.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sarpanch Grampanchayat, Hanbarwadi
Adv. S. S. Kestikar
Respondent(s)
Pandurang Mallavva Kengar etc.
Sonabai Aananda Masole
Parubai Dhondiba Davane
Sarsabai Basappa Davane
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. AND J.M.F.C.Kagal.
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Steps
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 30-03-2026 | Steps |
| 16-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 05-02-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 20-12-2025 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
Case Summary - RCS 60/2024 The court allowed the defendants' application to amend their Written Statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The defendants sought to add paragraph 12-A regarding the sale of the suit property by original owner Shrimant Kshatra Jagatguru to the defendant's mother, claiming documents were unavailable at the time of filing. Though the plaintiff opposed the amendment as an afterthought, the court permitted it, finding it necessary to decide the real controversy and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The defendants were directed to file the amended Written Statement within the statutory period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary - RCS 60/2024 The court allowed the defendants' application to amend their Written Statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The defendants sought to add paragraph 12-A regarding the sale of the suit property by original owner Shrimant Kshatra Jagatguru to the defendant's mother, claiming documents were unavailable at the time of filing. Though the plaintiff opposed the amendment as an afterthought, the court permitted it, finding it necessary to decide the real controversy and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The defendants were directed to file the amended Written Statement within the statutory period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts