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

Argument on Exh.____Unready

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

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

10-10-2025
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court,Bhor All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case