Bhagirathabai W/o Balaji Kature vs Namdev S/o Mahadu Akkangire and other 5 Advocate - Ghogre Dhanraj L — 56/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHLA050004152022
Next Hearing
20th June 2026
Filing Number
934/2022
Filing Date
24-08-2022
Registration No
56/2022
Registration Date
24-08-2022
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Ahmedpur
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedpur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhagirathabai W/o Balaji Kature
Adv. Demgunde Nathrao N
Respondent(s)
Namdev S/o Mahadu Akkangire and other 5 Advocate - Ghogre Dhanraj L
Mangalbai W/o Namdev Akkangire
Dhnanjay S/o Namdev Akkangire
Sulakshana W/o Laxman Pastapure
Chaya W/o Dhananjay Kature
Sub Divisional Officer @ Competent Authority
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedpur
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-06-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 30-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 08-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 16-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 16-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
Case 56/2022 - Bhagirathabai v. Namdev and others The court allowed the petitioner's application to change her legal counsel. The judge held that a client has the fundamental right to engage a new advocate of their choice and that an advocate cannot prevent this by withholding consent or briefs. The court rejected the concept of requiring a "No Objection Certificate" from a previous advocate, noting it is merely a matter of professional etiquette, not substantive law binding on courts. The petition was granted without imposing costs on the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 56/2022 - Bhagirathabai v. Namdev and others The court allowed the petitioner's application to change her legal counsel. The judge held that a client has the fundamental right to engage a new advocate of their choice and that an advocate cannot prevent this by withholding consent or briefs. The court rejected the concept of requiring a "No Objection Certificate" from a previous advocate, noting it is merely a matter of professional etiquette, not substantive law binding on courts. The petition was granted without imposing costs on the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts