Milind Bhaskarrao Dongre vs Sopan Gorakhnath Kargaonkar Advocate - P. H. Raghute — 137/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHNG100022812015
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
205/2016
Filing Date
08-08-2016
Registration No
137/2016
Registration Date
08-08-2016
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Umrer
Judge
1-JT.CIVIL JUDGE JR. DVN. J.M.F.C.UMRER
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Milind Bhaskarrao Dongre
Adv. L. R. Mandaokar
Respondent(s)
Sopan Gorakhnath Kargaonkar Advocate - P. H. Raghute
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JT.CIVIL JUDGE JR. DVN. J.M.F.C.UMRER
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 13-04-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 16-02-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 20-01-2026 | Defence Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary This document contains two separate court orders from the Joint Civil Judge at Umred: Order 1 (24/01/2024): The plaintiff's application to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed. The court permitted the amendment within 14 days, finding it would not change the suit's nature or prejudice the defendant, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the application costs. Order 2 (15/07/2021): The defendant's application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. The court found the civil suit for electricity connection challenging was maintainable and that it had jurisdiction to try the case, as the dispute was civil in nature and not covered under the Electricity Act's special court provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This document contains two separate court orders from the Joint Civil Judge at Umred: Order 1 (24/01/2024): The plaintiff's application to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed. The court permitted the amendment within 14 days, finding it would not change the suit's nature or prejudice the defendant, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the application costs. Order 2 (15/07/2021): The defendant's application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. The court found the civil suit for electricity connection challenging was maintainable and that it had jurisdiction to try the case, as the dispute was civil in nature and not covered under the Electricity Act's special court provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts