Jalal Bashiruddin Kadiri vs Dipti Nandu Rajput alias Dipti Nilesh Bire Advocate - Santosh Maruti Sapte — 28/2024

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34 and 38. Status: Verification. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHRG130003572024

Verification

Next Hearing

30th June 2026

e-Filing Number

04-08-2024

Filing Number

62/2024

Filing Date

05-08-2024

Registration No

28/2024

Registration Date

05-08-2024

Court

Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C.Shriwardhan

Judge

1-CIVIL JUDGE J D AND J M F C SHRIWARDHAN

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34 and 38

Petitioner(s)

Jalal Bashiruddin Kadiri

Adv. GHATTE RAFIQ AMIR

Respondent(s)

Dipti Nandu Rajput alias Dipti Nilesh Bire Advocate - Santosh Maruti Sapte

Nandu Antaram Rajput

Hearing History

Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J D AND J M F C SHRIWARDHAN

23-04-2026

Verification

08-04-2026

Verification

10-03-2026

Evidence

16-02-2026

Order on Exh

09-02-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

10-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application to recast issue no. 1 and frame two additional issues in this declaration and injunction suit concerning an undivided share of land. The court held that issues must be framed based on pleadings under Order XIV of CPC, and since the plaintiff did not challenge the sale deed or claim relief regarding it, the proposed issues regarding the binding nature of the sale deed do not arise from the pleadings. The existing ownership issue sufficiently covers the controversy, making recasting unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application to recast issue no. 1 and frame two additional issues in this declaration and injunction suit concerning an undivided share of land. The court held that issues must be framed based on pleadings under Order XIV of CPC, and since the plaintiff did not challenge the sale deed or claim relief regarding it, the proposed issues regarding the binding nature of the sale deed do not arise from the pleadings. The existing ownership issue sufficiently covers the controversy, making recasting unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C.Shriwardhan All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case