Ananta Vinayakrao Purohit vs Arvind Vinayakrao Purohit — 152/2025
Case under Hindu Succession Act Section 6. Status: Reply/Say. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHNG100022712025
e-Filing Number
24-11-2025
Filing Number
491/2025
Filing Date
25-Nov-2025
Registration No
152/2025
Registration Date
25-Nov-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Umrer
Judge
1-Jt.civil Judge Jr. Dvn. J.m.f.c.umrer
Last updated 24-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ananta Vinayakrao Purohit
Adv. MADDALWAR RUSHIKESH RAVINDRA
-
2.Hemanta Vinayakrao Purohit
Adv. MADDALWAR RUSHIKESH RAVINDRA
-
3.Sunita W/o Sanjay Pande
Adv. MADDALWAR RUSHIKESH RAVINDRA
-
4.Sunanda W/o Shrikant Shriram
Adv. MADDALWAR RUSHIKESH RAVINDRA
-
5.Utkarsha Uday Vekhande
Adv. MADDALWAR RUSHIKESH RAVINDRA
Respondent(s)
-
1.Arvind Vinayakrao Purohit
-
2.Kshitij Vikas Khanorkar
Case History
-
23-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
07-May-2026
Reply/Say
Jt.civil Judge Jr. Dvn. J.m.f.c.umrer
-
09-Apr-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Summary: The petition filed by the applicant against Defendant No. 2 seeking permission to file a written statement was dismissed as infructuous. The court found that the case had already been decided, Defendant No. 2's objection under Rule 7 was upheld, and the applicant's petition had become pointless. Order passed on 09 April 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Apr-2026
Reply/Say
Jt.civil Judge Jr. Dvn. J.m.f.c.umrer
-
06-Apr-2026
Reply/Say
Jt.civil Judge Jr. Dvn. J.m.f.c.umrer
-
12-Mar-2026
Written Statement
Jt.civil Judge Jr. Dvn. J.m.f.c.umrer
-
05-Feb-2026
Written Statement
Jt.civil Judge Jr. Dvn. J.m.f.c.umrer
-
05-Jan-2026
Written Statement
Jt.civil Judge Jr. Dvn. J.m.f.c.umrer
-
28-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 152/2025
Summary: The petition filed by the applicant against Defendant No. 2 seeking permission to file a written statement was dismissed as infructuous. The court found that the case had already been decided, Defendant No. 2's objection under Rule 7 was upheld, and the applicant's petition had become pointless. Order passed on 09 April 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts