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.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHRT010002222025
e-Filing Number
06-02-2024
Filing Number
144/2025
Filing Date
24-03-2025
Registration No
12/2025
Registration Date
25-03-2025
Court
District and session court , Ratnagiri
Judge
4-Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Chandrakant Tanu Mavlankar
Adv. Ambre Macchindra Suresh
Respondent(s)
Priyanka Manohar Melage Before Marriage Priyanka Prabhakar Mavlankar Advocate - Mandavkar Mahendra Vasant
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 02-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 23-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 13-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts