Dhondiba Baburao Venupure vs Baban Raya Venupure Advocate - Kondhalkar Uday Sopan — 15/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section A. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 07th May 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHPU120014022016
Next Hearing
07th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
21/2017
Filing Date
02-02-2017
Registration No
15/2017
Registration Date
02-02-2017
Court
Civil Court,Bhor
Judge
1-JT. C.J.J.D. AND J.M.F.C. BHOR, PUNE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dhondiba Baburao Venupure
Adv. Choudhary Deepak Vasant
Respondent(s)
Baban Raya Venupure Advocate - Kondhalkar Uday Sopan
Rajaram Raghu Venupure
Kamal Raghu Venupure
Vimal Raghunath Dighe
Shreya Bhushan Purkar
Chandrakant Maruti Venupure
Ashwini Prakash Misal
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
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 07-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 29-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 17-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 06-12-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary The court allowed the application filed by Defendant No. 7 under CPC Order 7, Rule 11 to dismiss the plaintiff's suit. The court found that the plaintiff's claim to cancel a deed of sale dated 23/12/2011 was barred by the Limitation Act, as it was filed more than 5 years after the plaintiff became aware of the deed, exceeding the 3-year limitation period for such actions. The court also noted procedural defects, including that Defendant No. 7 was not properly served notice, and dismissed the suit accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court allowed the application filed by Defendant No. 7 under CPC Order 7, Rule 11 to dismiss the plaintiff's suit. The court found that the plaintiff's claim to cancel a deed of sale dated 23/12/2011 was barred by the Limitation Act, as it was filed more than 5 years after the plaintiff became aware of the deed, exceeding the 3-year limitation period for such actions. The court also noted procedural defects, including that Defendant No. 7 was not properly served notice, and dismissed the suit accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts