Smt.Tulsabai Pandu Konduskar vs Vishnu Masu Katkar,etc.10 Advocate - R. I. Palkar — 4/2020

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section C. P. C. Status: Steps. Next hearing: 29th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO150000302020

Steps

Next Hearing

29th June 2026

Filing Number

4/2020

Filing Date

14-01-2020

Registration No

4/2020

Registration Date

14-01-2020

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Ajara

Judge

1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section C. P. C

Petitioner(s)

Smt.Tulsabai Pandu Konduskar

Adv. D. J. Desai

Respondent(s)

Vishnu Masu Katkar,etc.10 Advocate - R. I. Palkar

Dayanand Ishavar Katkar

Sangita Dilip Survavshi

Sarita Jothiba Bhogn

Asamita Shankar Chavan

Parvin Kerba Katkar

Manisha Namadev Belwadkar

Sunil Kerba Katkar

Sushila Kerba Katkar

Hoshabai Shivaji Kandgla

Hearing History

Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara

20-04-2026

Steps

16-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

16-02-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

12-01-2026

Awaiting Summons

01-01-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

Interim Orders

20-04-2026
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: RCS 4/2020 - Tulsabai v. Vishnu Masu Katkar & Others The plaintiff's application to amend the suit for partition and possession by adding Block No. 577 (ancestral land in defendant no. 1's name) was ALLOWED with conditions. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 500 payable to Legal Aid, Ajara, finding that while all family properties must be included in partition suits, the plaintiff caused delay by omitting the property inadvertently. The plaintiff must file an amended plaint within the prescribed timeframe, and defendants may file an amended written statement responding only to the amended portion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS 4/2020 - Tulsabai v. Vishnu Masu Katkar & Others The plaintiff's application to amend the suit for partition and possession by adding Block No. 577 (ancestral land in defendant no. 1's name) was ALLOWED with conditions. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 500 payable to Legal Aid, Ajara, finding that while all family properties must be included in partition suits, the plaintiff caused delay by omitting the property inadvertently. The plaintiff must file an amended plaint within the prescribed timeframe, and defendants may file an amended written statement responding only to the amended portion. 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 , Ajara All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case