Rakhamabai Karbhari Zade and Others vs Sukhadev Harishchandra Zade and Others — 126/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 10th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHNS280005352025
Filing Number
554/2025
Filing Date
13-Jul-2017
Registration No
126/2017
Registration Date
13-Jul-2017
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Sinnar
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
Decision Date
10-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Last updated 29-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Rakhamabai Karbhari Zade and Others
Adv. Punde Chandrabhan V
-
2.Waman Karbhari Zade
-
3.Ashok Karbhari Zade
Adv. Punde Chandrabhan V
-
4.Shakuntala S.Shinde
Adv. Punde Chandrabhan V
-
5.Madhukar Karbhari Zade
Adv. Punde Chandrabhan V
-
6.Saroja Arjun Karpe
Adv. Punde Chandrabhan V
-
7.Machindranath Karbhari Zade
Adv. Punde Chandrabhan V
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sukhadev Harishchandra Zade and Others
-
2.Uttam Harishchandra Zade
-
3.Bapu Arjun Zade
-
4.Mirabai Kacharu Davkhar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The Civil Judge, Sinnar dismissed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction under Order IX Rule 3 of CPC for want of prosecution. The plaintiffs failed to serve summons on three of four defendants, repeatedly ignored court directions to secure their presence, and subsequently failed to lead evidence in support of their claim despite multiple opportunities. Each party bears their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Mar-2026
Disposed
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
09-Jan-2026
Dismissal Order
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
18-Nov-2025
Ex_Party Hearing
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
07-Oct-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
19-Aug-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
19-Jun-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Jul-2017
Case filed
Registration No. 126/2017
The Civil Judge, Sinnar dismissed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction under Order IX Rule 3 of CPC for want of prosecution. The plaintiffs failed to serve summons on three of four defendants, repeatedly ignored court directions to secure their presence, and subsequently failed to lead evidence in support of their claim despite multiple opportunities. Each party bears their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts