Prem s/o Mukund Sirsat and other 1Represented by Guardian -Shalika Mukund Sirsat vs Subhash s/o Narayan Sirsat and other 6 Advocate - Jadhav Rajesaheb V — 1800063/2013
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order07Rule01,02. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA130003912013
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
1800063/2013
Filing Date
12-07-2013
Registration No
1800063/2013
Registration Date
12-07-2013
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Renapur
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.Renapur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Prem s/o Mukund Sirsat and other 1Represented by Guardian -Shalika Mukund Sirsat
Adv. Bhise Waman H
Shalika w/o Mukund Sirsat
Adv. Bhise Waman H
Respondent(s)
Subhash s/o Narayan Sirsat and other 6 Advocate - Jadhav Rajesaheb V
Ayodhya Subhash Sirsat
Adv. Jadhav Rajesaheb V
Mukund s/o Subhash Sirsat
Adv. Jadhav Rajesaheb V
Kamlakar s/o Subhash Sirsat
Adv. Jadhav Rajesaheb V
Nitin so Subhash Sirsat
Hemant so Balasaheb Jadhav
Sow Sandhya Subhash Amlekar
Adv. Holkar Rohit B
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.Renapur
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 17-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 07-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Prem v. Subhash (RCS No. 63/2013) Outcome: The defendants' application was rejected. The court dismissed the defendants' challenge that the partition suit should be struck off for lack of formal guardian/next friend appointment. The court found that while plaintiff no.2 failed to file a separate formal application as required under Order 32 Rule 2, this was a technical defect that should not defeat the suit, especially since the suit plainly indicated it was filed by the mother as guardian of the minor plaintiff and she was willing to file the requisite application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Prem v. Subhash (RCS No. 63/2013) Outcome: The defendants' application was rejected. The court dismissed the defendants' challenge that the partition suit should be struck off for lack of formal guardian/next friend appointment. The court found that while plaintiff no.2 failed to file a separate formal application as required under Order 32 Rule 2, this was a technical defect that should not defeat the suit, especially since the suit plainly indicated it was filed by the mother as guardian of the minor plaintiff and she was willing to file the requisite application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts