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

Case disposed

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 96

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.

11-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

Judgment

02-03-2026

Arguments

23-02-2026

Arguments

13-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

11-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and session court , Ratnagiri All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case