Sumitra Rajeshwari Swami vs Subhash Sidhaiyya Mathpati and oths.8 Advocate - Ghadke Kiran S — 393/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA110009222022
Next Hearing
25th June 2026
Filing Number
649/2017
Filing Date
14-09-2017
Registration No
393/2017
Registration Date
14-09-2017
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Nilanga
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sumitra Rajeshwari Swami
Adv. Narhare Praveen L
Respondent(s)
Subhash Sidhaiyya Mathpati and oths.8 Advocate - Ghadke Kiran S
Sidhaiyya Subhash Mathpati
Shivkumar Subhash Mathpati
Nirmala Subhash Mathpati
Adv. Ghadke Kiran S
Koushalya Umesh Davargave
Adv. Ghadke Kiran S
Savita Mallikarjun Swami
Adv. Ghadke Kiran S
Kavita Subhash Mathpati
Adv. Ghadke Kiran S
Shahanavaj Sattar Mulla
Adv. Shaikh Majidali A
Narsing Dattu Biradar
Adv. More Sandip K
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 25-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 10-02-2026 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS 393/2017 - Sumitra vs. Subhash & Ors. Outcome: The court set aside the order dated 12.09.2025 that had discarded the plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff's application for reinstatement was allowed in the interest of justice, as the suit concerns partition of ancestral joint family property. The plaintiff's absence was due to continuous rains blocking roads and her illness. However, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1,000 to defendants 8 and 9 as compensation for the delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS 393/2017 - Sumitra vs. Subhash & Ors. Outcome: The court set aside the order dated 12.09.2025 that had discarded the plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff's application for reinstatement was allowed in the interest of justice, as the suit concerns partition of ancestral joint family property. The plaintiff's absence was due to continuous rains blocking roads and her illness. However, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1,000 to defendants 8 and 9 as compensation for the delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts