Deepak Haribhau Adhatrav vs Mangal Haribhau Adhatrav Advocate - Langhi harshad Suresh — 68/2022
Case under Hindu Succession Act Section 6. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHPU130003162022
Next Hearing
08th April 2026
Filing Number
120/2022
Filing Date
04-03-2022
Registration No
68/2022
Registration Date
09-03-2022
Court
Civil Court,Saswad
Judge
2-Jt.Civil JudgeJ.D. AND J.M.F.C,Saswad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Deepak Haribhau Adhatrav
Adv. Maniyar Saniya Sajid
Respondent(s)
Mangal Haribhau Adhatrav Advocate - Langhi harshad Suresh
Rajkumar Haribhau Adhatrav
Adv. Langhi harshad Suresh
Sanjay Haribhau Adhatrav
Adv. Langhi harshad Suresh
Shamrao Dnyanoba Adhatrav
Adv. Mulla Abida Abbas
Ramchandra Dnyanoba Adhatrav
Vimal Balkrushn Koli
Adv. Mulla Abida Abbas
Bebi Ananda Kore
Adv. Mulla Abida Abbas
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt.Civil JudgeJ.D. AND J.M.F.C,Saswad
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 07-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 11-12-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 18-11-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 25-09-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for appointment of a court commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. The judge held that since the suit is for partition, declaration, and injunction (not encroachment removal), appointment of a court commissioner is unnecessary, and the plaintiff must gather evidence through the trial process rather than court-appointed means. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for appointment of a court commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. The judge held that since the suit is for partition, declaration, and injunction (not encroachment removal), appointment of a court commissioner is unnecessary, and the plaintiff must gather evidence through the trial process rather than court-appointed means. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts