Nirmala Sanju More and others 1 vs Manik Hanmant Somwanshi @ Patil and others 4 Advocate - Kamble Santosh P — 1900005/2011
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA160001232011
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
1900005/2011
Filing Date
29-01-2011
Registration No
1900005/2011
Registration Date
29-01-2011
Court
Civil Court Junior Division, Deoni
Judge
1-CJJD and JMFC Deoni
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nirmala Sanju More and others 1
Adv. Patil Rajesh M
Arunabai Ramesh Jadhav
Adv. Patil Rajesh M
Respondent(s)
Manik Hanmant Somwanshi @ Patil and others 4 Advocate - Kamble Santosh P
Namdeo Hanmant Somwanshi @ Patil
Adv. Patil Balaji V
Balaji Namdeo Somwanshi @ Patil
Adv. Patil Balaji V
Vimalbai Maroti Savalkar
Adv. Mahajan Upendra C
Dharmaji Girjappa Sonkawade
Adv. Mahajan Upendra C
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CJJD and JMFC Deoni
Evidence
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 10-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 13-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 12-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 22-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: The court allowed the application to frame an additional issue in this partition and land transfer dispute. The additional issue framed is: "Do defendant Nos. 2 to 5 prove that defendant No.1 sold the land in legal necessity?" The burden of proof regarding legal necessity is shifted to defendants 2-5 under sections 106/109 of the Evidence Act, and both parties are directed to expedite the suit and adduce evidence without claiming adjournments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The court allowed the application to frame an additional issue in this partition and land transfer dispute. The additional issue framed is: "Do defendant Nos. 2 to 5 prove that defendant No.1 sold the land in legal necessity?" The burden of proof regarding legal necessity is shifted to defendants 2-5 under sections 106/109 of the Evidence Act, and both parties are directed to expedite the suit and adduce evidence without claiming adjournments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts