VIJAY KRISHNAKANT CHAWHAN vs AMARSING TARASING JADHAV — 19/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/S ODER 21. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHNG070008382025
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
e-Filing Number
05-05-2025
Filing Number
61/2025
Filing Date
06-05-2025
Registration No
19/2025
Registration Date
06-05-2025
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division , Katol
Judge
1-Jt. Civil JudgeJr.Dn. J.M.F.C Katol
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VIJAY KRISHNAKANT CHAWHAN
Adv. SHAIKH ALTAF MOHAMMEDDEEN
PRAVIN KUMAR GOPALRAO MAKODE
Adv. SHAIKH ALTAF MOHAMMEDDEEN
Respondent(s)
AMARSING TARASING JADHAV
YASHODA LALCHAND RATHOD
JAYAWANTI FAGILAL RATHOD
CHUNDIBAI TARASING JADHAV
MANGU TARASING JADHAV
PANEBAI KASHIRAM CHAVHAN (died)
DURRAKDAS KASHIRAM CHAVHAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt. Civil JudgeJr.Dn. J.M.F.C Katol
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Hearing | |
| 10-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 20-01-2026 | Hearing | |
| 09-12-2025 | Hearing | |
| 11-11-2025 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court granted a status quo order directing defendants 1, 2, and 4-6 to maintain the status quo regarding alienation of the suit property until the next date of hearing. The suit seeks specific performance of a contract for sale of property worth Rs. 2,00,000, of which Rs. 1,75,000 has been paid, with the defendants allegedly attempting to alienate the property after agreeing to execute the sale deed. Ex parte orders were passed against defendants who did not appear, while defendant 5 received a no-say order due to non-compliance with court directions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court granted a status quo order directing defendants 1, 2, and 4-6 to maintain the status quo regarding alienation of the suit property until the next date of hearing. The suit seeks specific performance of a contract for sale of property worth Rs. 2,00,000, of which Rs. 1,75,000 has been paid, with the defendants allegedly attempting to alienate the property after agreeing to execute the sale deed. Ex parte orders were passed against defendants who did not appear, while defendant 5 received a no-say order due to non-compliance with court directions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts