Suryakant Madhav Dudhbhate vs Prakash Vishwanath Lohar Advocate - Patil Tanaji R — 17/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7(1)(2). Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHLA110001792025
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
e-Filing Number
03-04-2025
Filing Number
177/2025
Filing Date
03-04-2025
Registration No
17/2025
Registration Date
03-04-2025
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Nilanga
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Suryakant Madhav Dudhbhate
Adv. Gaikwad Hemant V
Respondent(s)
Prakash Vishwanath Lohar Advocate - Patil Tanaji R
Farukh Ahemad Abdul Khadar Deshmukh
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 13-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 13-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 09-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 07-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: SplCS No. 17/2025 The court allowed the defendant's application to produce a photocopy of the plaint from Regular Civil Suit No. 810/2022 as evidence in the temporary injunction proceedings, rejecting the plaintiff's objection that the document was unrelated to the present case. The court distinguished between production and proof of documents, noting that parties retain the opportunity to lead further evidence at trial. No order on costs was made. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: SplCS No. 17/2025 The court allowed the defendant's application to produce a photocopy of the plaint from Regular Civil Suit No. 810/2022 as evidence in the temporary injunction proceedings, rejecting the plaintiff's objection that the document was unrelated to the present case. The court distinguished between production and proof of documents, noting that parties retain the opportunity to lead further evidence at trial. No order on costs was made. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts