Vilas Sharnappa Patil and oth. 1 vs Sharnappa Kallappa Patil Birajdar and oth. 3 Advocate - Pathan Sarfraj J — 31/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA110000232019
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
Filing Number
23/2019
Filing Date
15-01-2019
Registration No
31/2019
Registration Date
15-01-2019
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Nilanga
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vilas Sharnappa Patil and oth. 1
Adv. Jadhav Udhav S
Sumitra Sharnappa Patil
Adv. Jadhav Udhav S
Respondent(s)
Sharnappa Kallappa Patil Birajdar and oth. 3 Advocate - Pathan Sarfraj J
Nilkanth Sharnappa Patil
Balvant Sharnappa Patil
Premalabai Rajappa Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 11-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 13-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 26-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 11-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS No. 31/2019 In this partition suit, the Court directed Defendant No. 4 to produce original sale deeds bearing Nos. 359/2009 and 360/2009 on record by the next date of hearing. The Court found that Defendant No. 4 admitted possessing these deeds and that she would need to produce them anyway to prove Issue No. 2, so directing their production would cause no prejudice. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS No. 31/2019 In this partition suit, the Court directed Defendant No. 4 to produce original sale deeds bearing Nos. 359/2009 and 360/2009 on record by the next date of hearing. The Court found that Defendant No. 4 admitted possessing these deeds and that she would need to produce them anyway to prove Issue No. 2, so directing their production would cause no prejudice. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts