Meena Deelip Jadhav and another vs Tahsildar Advocate - Pandharikar Kapil V_DGP — 193/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7. Status: Hearing Without W.S.. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA110001872021
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
187/2021
Filing Date
16-03-2021
Registration No
193/2021
Registration Date
16-03-2021
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Nilanga
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Meena Deelip Jadhav and another
Adv. Jadhav Udhav S
Deelip Tukaram Jadhav
Adv. Jadhav Udhav S
Respondent(s)
Tahsildar Advocate - Pandharikar Kapil V_DGP
Babu Kishan Jadhav
Bharat Kishan Jadhav
Kishan Ganpati Jadhav
Atmaram Kishan Jadhav
Sudhakar Namdev Jadhav
Kamlakar Tukaram Jadhav
Bhagwan Tukaram Jadhav
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
Hearing Without W.S.
Hearing Without W.S.
Hearing Without W.S.
Ex-Parte Order
Ex-Parte Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Hearing Without W.S. |
| 13-03-2026 | Hearing Without W.S. |
| 30-01-2026 | Hearing Without W.S. |
| 12-01-2026 | Ex-Parte Order |
| 05-11-2025 | Ex-Parte Order |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 193/2021 The application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was allowed. The court permitted plaintiffs to implead Maruti Sudhakar Jadhav and Anil Sudhakar Jadhav as defendants 9 and 10 in the perpetual injunction suit. The court found their presence necessary for complete adjudication since defendant 6 had partitioned property between them via mutation deed, and adding them would not change the suit's nature or prejudice existing defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 193/2021 The application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was allowed. The court permitted plaintiffs to implead Maruti Sudhakar Jadhav and Anil Sudhakar Jadhav as defendants 9 and 10 in the perpetual injunction suit. The court found their presence necessary for complete adjudication since defendant 6 had partitioned property between them via mutation deed, and adding them would not change the suit's nature or prejudice existing defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts