Anita Krushana Madhavi vs Ganpat Kashinath Gaikwad Advocate - SHEWAL NITIN MORESHWAR — 1700021/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39. Status: Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHRG160001332015
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
1700028/2015
Filing Date
18-06-2015
Registration No
1700021/2015
Registration Date
18-06-2015
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Pali
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D And J.M.F.C Pali-Sudhgad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anita Krushana Madhavi
Adv. Killekar P. P.
Respondent(s)
Ganpat Kashinath Gaikwad Advocate - SHEWAL NITIN MORESHWAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D And J.M.F.C Pali-Sudhgad
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
W.S. and Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 16-04-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 08-04-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 31-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 12-03-2026 | W.S. and Say |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 1700021/2015 Anita Krushana Madhavi v. Ganpat Kashinath Gaikwad The court allowed the petition and granted the application (Mark 69). The court ordered that a property purchase deed dated 06/05/1977 submitted as evidence by Plaintiff No. 4 be marked with an exhibit number and admitted into the record. Although the deed was originally marked as "Article A," the court determined under Indian Evidence Act Section 90 that the ancient document (over 30 years old) should be properly marked and read into evidence, thereby allowing the petitioner's request. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 1700021/2015 Anita Krushana Madhavi v. Ganpat Kashinath Gaikwad The court allowed the petition and granted the application (Mark 69). The court ordered that a property purchase deed dated 06/05/1977 submitted as evidence by Plaintiff No. 4 be marked with an exhibit number and admitted into the record. Although the deed was originally marked as "Article A," the court determined under Indian Evidence Act Section 90 that the ancient document (over 30 years old) should be properly marked and read into evidence, thereby allowing the petitioner's request. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts