Uttam S/o Govind Chavan vs Ganapati S/o Govind Chavan — 951/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order 7Rule 1 & 2. Status: Amended Plaint. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA050008692025
Next Hearing
22nd June 2026
e-Filing Number
06-12-2024
Filing Number
641/2025
Filing Date
06-12-2024
Registration No
951/2024
Registration Date
06-12-2024
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Ahmedpur
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedpur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Uttam S/o Govind Chavan
Respondent(s)
Ganapati S/o Govind Chavan
Hanamant S/o Rupla Chavan
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedpur
Amended Plaint
Amended Plaint
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-06-2026 | Amended Plaint |
| 22-04-2026 | Amended Plaint |
| 30-03-2026 | Compliance |
| 16-03-2026 | Compliance |
| 16-02-2026 | Compliance |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Civil Case 951/2024 (Uttam v. Ganapati and Hanamant), the court granted the petitioner's application for correction/rectification of the plaint filed under CPC Order 6 Rule 17. The petitioner sought to correct typographical errors in the property descriptions within the plaint, including corrections to plot numbers, land area measurements (changing "2 acres 4 ares" to "83 ares"), and location names (such as "Mouje Varavati" to "Mouje Shingi"). The court found these corrections necessary and would not prejudice the defendants' rights, so the petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to file the corrected plaint in the original suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Civil Case 951/2024 (Uttam v. Ganapati and Hanamant), the court granted the petitioner's application for correction/rectification of the plaint filed under CPC Order 6 Rule 17. The petitioner sought to correct typographical errors in the property descriptions within the plaint, including corrections to plot numbers, land area measurements (changing "2 acres 4 ares" to "83 ares"), and location names (such as "Mouje Varavati" to "Mouje Shingi"). The court found these corrections necessary and would not prejudice the defendants' rights, so the petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to file the corrected plaint in the original suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts