Pandurang Govind Mahadik vs Dnyanu Devaba Jadhav Advocate - एस. व्ही. खोत — 8/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O21. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
Reg Dkst - Regular Execution Petition
CNR: MHKO200002502019
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
79/2019
Filing Date
28-08-2019
Registration No
8/2019
Registration Date
28-08-2019
Court
CJJD and JMFC, Kale-Kheriwade
Judge
1-CJJD and JMFC Kale-Kherivade
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pandurang Govind Mahadik
Adv. Shahaji S. Patil
Respondent(s)
Dnyanu Devaba Jadhav Advocate - एस. व्ही. खोत
Haibati Dnyanu Jadhav
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CJJD and JMFC Kale-Kherivade
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 10-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 07-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 17-01-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 20-12-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary The petition was dismissed. The court found that the third-party defendants/respondents were not proper parties to the application, as the original suit (R.K.N. 377/2017) had already been decided and the disputed property's ownership had been settled through a registered deed dated 14.03.2012. Since the third parties lacked standing and the application failed to establish any legal basis for their involvement, the court rejected the petition without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The petition was dismissed. The court found that the third-party defendants/respondents were not proper parties to the application, as the original suit (R.K.N. 377/2017) had already been decided and the disputed property's ownership had been settled through a registered deed dated 14.03.2012. Since the third parties lacked standing and the application failed to establish any legal basis for their involvement, the court rejected the petition without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts