Dattu Arjun Nirbhavane etc 1 vs Tukaram Ananda Sonwane @ Tukaram Arjun Nirbhavane Advocate - Patil Ashokkumar R. — 1800008/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section CivilProcedureCode. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHNS180000812015
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1800008/2015
Filing Date
20-01-2015
Registration No
1800008/2015
Registration Date
20-01-2015
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Kalwan
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dattu Arjun Nirbhavane etc 1
Adv. Deore Siddharth L.
Respondent(s)
Tukaram Ananda Sonwane @ Tukaram Arjun Nirbhavane Advocate - Patil Ashokkumar R.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 07-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 10-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 27-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 02-12-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
Summary The court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, permitting the inclusion of allegations regarding the alienation of suit property Gat No. 252 and impleading new defendants. The court found the amendment necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, though it imposed costs of Rs. 1,000 on the plaintiff for the delay in filing the application after five years. The plaintiff was directed to file the amended plaint by the next date. 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 Code of Civil Procedure, permitting the inclusion of allegations regarding the alienation of suit property Gat No. 252 and impleading new defendants. The court found the amendment necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, though it imposed costs of Rs. 1,000 on the plaintiff for the delay in filing the application after five years. The plaintiff was directed to file the amended plaint by the next date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts