Namdeo Haribhau Satav vs Haribhau Vithoba Satav and 6 Advocate - L. P.Gaikwad, S.S. Nakade — 1200046/2013
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHNG110004412013
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
1200067/2013
Filing Date
08-07-2013
Registration No
1200046/2013
Registration Date
08-07-2013
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division , Kuhi
Judge
1-Civil JudgeJr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Kuhi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Namdeo Haribhau Satav
Adv. S.P. PRASAD
Respondent(s)
Haribhau Vithoba Satav and 6 Advocate - L. P.Gaikwad, S.S. Nakade
Jagdish Haribhau Satav
Pradeep Haribhau Satav
Subhash Haribhau satav
Sanjay Haribhau Satav
Rajesh Haribhau Satav
Manda Rajesh Butke
Pramila Haribhau Satav
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil JudgeJr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Kuhi
Evidence
Evidence
Steps
Steps
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 01-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 10-03-2026 | Steps |
| 24-02-2026 | Steps |
| 03-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Namdeo v. Haribhau (R.C.S. No.46/2013) The court allowed the plaintiff's application to add a proposed defendant (a co-sharer) to a partition and separate possession suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the application was filed 4.5 years after the defendants' written statement, the court found the proposed defendant was a necessary party to the suit whose presence was essential for complete adjudication of the property rights involved. The plaintiff was directed to carry out the amendment within the stipulated time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Namdeo v. Haribhau (R.C.S. No.46/2013) The court allowed the plaintiff's application to add a proposed defendant (a co-sharer) to a partition and separate possession suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the application was filed 4.5 years after the defendants' written statement, the court found the proposed defendant was a necessary party to the suit whose presence was essential for complete adjudication of the property rights involved. The plaintiff was directed to carry out the amendment within the stipulated time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts