Pranita Pradip Chakurkar vs Anil Subhashrao Kulkarni Advocate - Shete Purushottam V — 33/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section order39rule1and2. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHLA150002102024

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

Next Hearing

24th June 2026

e-Filing Number

21-02-2024

Filing Number

119/2024

Filing Date

21-02-2024

Registration No

33/2024

Registration Date

21-02-2024

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Chakur

Judge

1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Chakur

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section order39rule1and2

Petitioner(s)

Pranita Pradip Chakurkar

Adv. WADKAR AKASH VIVEKANAND

Respondent(s)

Anil Subhashrao Kulkarni Advocate - Shete Purushottam V

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Chakur

06-05-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

13-04-2026

Dismissal Order

13-03-2026

Dismissal Order

27-02-2026

Evidence

16-01-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

04-04-2024
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 33/2024 Outcome: The defendants' application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the CPC was rejected. The court found the plaintiff (widow of deceased Pradip Chakurkar) has a valid cause of action to pursue her suit for declaration that a partition deed dated 13.12.2019 is not binding upon her and for perpetual injunction against the defendants regarding disputed property. The court held that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence, which cannot be determined at the plaint rejection stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 33/2024 Outcome: The defendants' application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the CPC was rejected. The court found the plaintiff (widow of deceased Pradip Chakurkar) has a valid cause of action to pursue her suit for declaration that a partition deed dated 13.12.2019 is not binding upon her and for perpetual injunction against the defendants regarding disputed property. The court held that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence, which cannot be determined at the plaint rejection stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Chakur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case