Shevanta Pandurang Dadmode vs Dhondiram Dattu Salavi Advocate - S. S. Kestikar — 1/2020
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Dismissal Order. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO130011752019
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
Filing Number
267/2019
Filing Date
01-01-2020
Registration No
1/2020
Registration Date
01-01-2020
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Kagal
Judge
10-Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shevanta Pandurang Dadmode
Adv. G. V. Chougale
Respondent(s)
Dhondiram Dattu Salavi Advocate - S. S. Kestikar
Shanubai Shivaji Aswale
Savitri Maruti More
Sushila Akaram Savartkar
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 30-03-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 16-03-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 15-01-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 27-11-2025 | Dismissal Order |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 01/2020 The suit filed by Shevanta Pandurang Dadmode against Dhondiram Dattu Salavi was kept for necessary order of dismissal. The court found that the plaintiff repeatedly failed to appear in court despite being called out, and the matter remained pending for over 5 years awaiting the plaintiff's evidence. Given the plaintiff's apparent lack of interest and indispensable need for the plaintiff's presence to proceed, the court determined that further delay would constitute dead pendency and unnecessary judicial burden. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 01/2020 The suit filed by Shevanta Pandurang Dadmode against Dhondiram Dattu Salavi was kept for necessary order of dismissal. The court found that the plaintiff repeatedly failed to appear in court despite being called out, and the matter remained pending for over 5 years awaiting the plaintiff's evidence. Given the plaintiff's apparent lack of interest and indispensable need for the plaintiff's presence to proceed, the court determined that further delay would constitute dead pendency and unnecessary judicial burden. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts