Vimaltai Ramesh Dhore vs Lalita Babanrao Hedawu and other Advocate - B.S. Mane — 16/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Spl.Civ.Suit
CNR: MHNG100011612017
Next Hearing
30th June 2026
Filing Number
1820/2017
Filing Date
26-10-2011
Registration No
16/2017
Registration Date
08-11-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Umrer
Judge
8-Civil Judge Senior Division, Umrer
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vimaltai Ramesh Dhore
Adv. B.W. Patil
Respondent(s)
Lalita Babanrao Hedawu and other Advocate - B.S. Mane
Shirin Zuber Ashrafi
Adv. B. C. Pal
Hearing History
Judge: 8-Civil Judge Senior Division, Umrer
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 10-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 27-01-2026 | Hearing |
| 23-12-2025 | Hearing |
| 18-11-2025 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to add paragraph 15A, which introduces information about a subsequently filed suit (Spl. C.S. No. 33/2019) by Defendant 1 against Defendant 2 for cancellation of the same sale deed, without making the plaintiff a party. The court found the proposed amendment necessary to show the existence of this subsequent development and ruled it would not cause prejudice to Defendant 1, as it does not change the nature or prayer clauses of the suit. The application was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 500 cost to Defendant 1. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to add paragraph 15A, which introduces information about a subsequently filed suit (Spl. C.S. No. 33/2019) by Defendant 1 against Defendant 2 for cancellation of the same sale deed, without making the plaintiff a party. The court found the proposed amendment necessary to show the existence of this subsequent development and ruled it would not cause prejudice to Defendant 1, as it does not change the nature or prayer clauses of the suit. The application was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 500 cost to Defendant 1. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts