Shri. Prakash Namdev Patil vs Sau. Sonabai Sadhu @ Namdev Patil Advocate - Vikas J. Patil — 108/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO160007882021
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
Filing Number
165/2021
Filing Date
20-10-2021
Registration No
108/2021
Registration Date
20-10-2021
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Malkapur Shauwadi
Judge
1-Civil Judge Junior Division Malkapur-Shahuwadi.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shri. Prakash Namdev Patil
Adv. J. S. Rasam
Shri. Tatoba Namdev Patil
Adv. J. S. Rasam
Smt. Ranjana Vishnu Mahagaonkar
Adv. J. S. Rasam
Sau. Anjana Bhimrao Patil
Adv. J. S. Rasam
Smt. Nirmala Sambhaji Patil
Adv. J. S. Rasam
Respondent(s)
Sau. Sonabai Sadhu @ Namdev Patil Advocate - Vikas J. Patil
Shri. Namdev @ Sadhu Aanna Patil
Adv. Vikas J. Patil
Shri. Sardar Kerba Shinde
Adv. S. D. Magdum
Sau. Sharada Keraba Shinde
Adv. S. D. Magdum
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Junior Division Malkapur-Shahuwadi.
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Steps_Unready
Steps_Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 10-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 10-03-2026 | Steps_Unready |
| 27-02-2026 | Steps_Unready |
| 03-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The application filed by Defendants 3 and 4 under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint for not disclosing a cause of action has been rejected. The court found that the plaint clearly discloses a cause of action in paragraph 5, and the defendants have locus standi to challenge the 1998 sale deed. The court also noted that the limitation issue was already decided in an earlier rejected application and cannot be reopened. Costs of Rs. 1,000 have been imposed on the defendants, payable to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The application filed by Defendants 3 and 4 under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint for not disclosing a cause of action has been rejected. The court found that the plaint clearly discloses a cause of action in paragraph 5, and the defendants have locus standi to challenge the 1998 sale deed. The court also noted that the limitation issue was already decided in an earlier rejected application and cannot be reopened. Costs of Rs. 1,000 have been imposed on the defendants, payable to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts