Sushila Dyaneshwar alies Dyanoba Pangare etc.3 vs Mahesh Kashinath Gurav etc. 12 Advocate - Borge Rajashree Vilas — 2700096/2013
Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHPU120004692013
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2700096/2013
Filing Date
03-05-2013
Registration No
2700096/2013
Registration Date
26-06-2013
Court
Civil Court,Bhor
Judge
1-JT. C.J.J.D. AND J.M.F.C. BHOR, PUNE
Petitioner(s)
Sushila Dyaneshwar alies Dyanoba Pangare etc.3
Adv. Shinde Suresh Yashwant
Rupesh Dnyaneshvar Alies Dnyanoba pangare
Adv. Shinde Suresh Yashwant
Rupali santosh kamate
Adv. Shinde Suresh Yashwant
Vitthal Dnyaneshvar Alies Dnyanoba pangare
Adv. Shinde Suresh Yashwant
Respondent(s)
Mahesh Kashinath Gurav etc. 12 Advocate - Borge Rajashree Vilas
Ganesh Tulashiram Gade
Sagar Shrirang Jagtap
Balasaheb Ramchandra Jagtap
Shashikant Namdev Yedave
Adv. Borge Rajeshree Vilas
Sharad Vitthal Kudale
Adv. Bothara Manisha Kantilal
Kundalik Dagadu Yepre
Adv. Bothara Manisha Kantilal
Ganapat Narayan Pangare
Adv. Dixshit prakash vishvanath
Gaubai Narayan Pangare
Adv. Dixshit prakash vishvanath
Kamal Maruti Gorhe
Adv. Dixshit prakash vishvanath
Vimal Namdev Gorhe
Adv. Dixshit prakash vishvanath
Savita Balasaheb Kumbharkar
Adv. Dixshit prakash vishvanath
Pramila Arun Jagtap
Adv. Dixshit prakash vishvanath
Hanumant Kisan Pangare
Adv. Shinde Vaishali Bhau
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JT. C.J.J.D. AND J.M.F.C. BHOR, PUNE
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Compliance
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 13-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 09-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 21-11-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 10-10-2025 | Compliance |
Interim Orders
Summary The court allowed the delay condonation application and condoned the 171-day delay in filing the review petition. The court found that the plaintiff had shown sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the delay resulted from bona fide procedural circumstances and change of counsel, not deliberate negligence or mala fides. The review application will now be registered and heard on merits, subject to payment of Rs. 1,500 as costs to Legal Aid, Bhor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court allowed the delay condonation application and condoned the 171-day delay in filing the review petition. The court found that the plaintiff had shown sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the delay resulted from bona fide procedural circumstances and change of counsel, not deliberate negligence or mala fides. The review application will now be registered and heard on merits, subject to payment of Rs. 1,500 as costs to Legal Aid, Bhor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts