Laxman Gotya Gaikwad vs Mansaram Ramu Gaikwad Advocate - Sonawane Deep N — 1800069/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section CivilProcedureCode. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHNS180008462015
Next Hearing
30th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1800069/2015
Filing Date
22-07-2015
Registration No
1800069/2015
Registration Date
22-07-2015
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Kalwan
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Laxman Gotya Gaikwad
Adv. Jadhav Ganesh K.
Respondent(s)
Mansaram Ramu Gaikwad Advocate - Sonawane Deep N
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 07-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 10-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 10-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 13-01-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The defendants' application to frame an additional issue regarding whether the plaintiff is the son of Gotya Bhorya Gaikwad has been rejected. The court held that this issue was already decided in a prior judgment (RCS No. 90/2012) where the court affirmatively found the plaintiff to be the son of Gotya Bhorya Gaikwad, and the existing issue regarding ancestral property already indirectly addresses the plaintiff's relationship to the common ancestor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The defendants' application to frame an additional issue regarding whether the plaintiff is the son of Gotya Bhorya Gaikwad has been rejected. The court held that this issue was already decided in a prior judgment (RCS No. 90/2012) where the court affirmatively found the plaintiff to be the son of Gotya Bhorya Gaikwad, and the existing issue regarding ancestral property already indirectly addresses the plaintiff's relationship to the common ancestor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts