Chandrakant Tanu Mavlankar vs Priyanka Manohar Melage Before Marriage Priyanka Prabhakar Mavlankar Advocate - Mandavkar Mahendra Vasant — 12/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal

CNR: MHRT010002222025

e-Filing Number

06-02-2024

Filing Number

144/2025

Filing Date

24-Mar-2025

Registration No

12/2025

Registration Date

25-Mar-2025

Court

District and session court , Ratnagiri

Judge

4-Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Last updated 30-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Chandrakant Tanu Mavlankar

    Adv. Ambre Macchindra Suresh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Priyanka Manohar Melage Before Marriage Priyanka Prabhakar Mavlankar Advocate - Mandavkar Mahendra Vasant

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The court allowed the defendant's appeal and set aside the trial court's judgment in a property partition case. The court found that the plaintiff had concealed material facts—specifically, receiving Rs. 8,13,000 from the defendant as settlement and not disclosing a purported settlement agreement—and proceeded with the suit in the defendant's absence, thereby denying him a fair hearing. The case has been remanded to the trial court for a fresh hearing with the defendant entitled to file a written statement within 45 days, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the defendant for his negligence in not tracking suit proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.

  7. 13-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.

  8. 20-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.

  9. 06-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.

  10. 08-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.

  11. 26-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.

  12. 27-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.

  13. 01-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.

  14. 10-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.

  15. 16-Jul-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    Principal District Sessions Judge Ratnagiri.

  16. 06-May-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    Principal District Sessions Judge Ratnagiri.

  17. 25-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  18. 25-Mar-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    Principal District Sessions Judge Ratnagiri.

  19. 25-Mar-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    Principal District Sessions Judge Ratnagiri.

  20. 24-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 12/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court allowed the defendant's appeal and set aside the trial court's judgment in a property partition case. The court found that the plaintiff had concealed material facts—specifically, receiving Rs. 8,13,000 from the defendant as settlement and not disclosing a purported settlement agreement—and proceeded with the suit in the defendant's absence, thereby denying him a fair hearing. The case has been remanded to the trial court for a fresh hearing with the defendant entitled to file a written statement within 45 days, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the defendant for his negligence in not tracking suit proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case