Sanjay Rajendra Shelke vs Jaywant Chandrakant Deshmukh — 200/2024
Case under Specific Relief (Amendment) Act Section 10. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHRG040014302024
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
e-Filing Number
16-04-2024
Filing Number
1409/2024
Filing Date
16-04-2024
Registration No
200/2024
Registration Date
18-04-2024
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Panvel
Judge
4-2nd CIVIL JUDGE S.D.PANVEL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sanjay Rajendra Shelke
Adv. URANKAR SANJAY SHANKAR
Vidhyadhar Mohan Kalas
Adv. URANKAR SANJAY SHANKAR
Sattan Hira Motho
Adv. URANKAR SANJAY SHANKAR
Respondent(s)
Jaywant Chandrakant Deshmukh
Hearing History
Judge: 4-2nd CIVIL JUDGE S.D.PANVEL
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 09-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 12-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 26-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 12-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 200/2024 Outcome: The petition is ALLOWED. The court rejected the plaint filed by respondent Jaywant Chandrakant Deshmukh (Defendant No. 6) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, finding that he lacks necessary party status and that the case suffers from jurisdictional and contractual defects. The court determined that Defendant No. 6 was not a party to the relevant 2005 agreement and therefore cannot enforce rights under it, and that prior writ petitions pending before the High Court create legal impediments to this suit's continuation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 200/2024 Outcome: The petition is ALLOWED. The court rejected the plaint filed by respondent Jaywant Chandrakant Deshmukh (Defendant No. 6) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, finding that he lacks necessary party status and that the case suffers from jurisdictional and contractual defects. The court determined that Defendant No. 6 was not a party to the relevant 2005 agreement and therefore cannot enforce rights under it, and that prior writ petitions pending before the High Court create legal impediments to this suit's continuation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts