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
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
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
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts