Avinash Krushna Parab etc. 5 vs Krushna Ramchandra Parab etc. 4 desease Advocate - GEERSAGAR SUDARSHAN SHRIPAD — 700039/2013

Status: Awaiting Summons. Next hearing: 13th July 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHSI070001052013

Awaiting Summons

Next Hearing

13th July 2026

Filing Number

700039/2013

Filing Date

12-04-2013

Registration No

700039/2013

Registration Date

12-04-2013

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Malvan

Judge

1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malvan

Petitioner(s)

Avinash Krushna Parab etc. 5

Adv. KULKARNI ULHAS BHALCHANDRA

Dilip Krushna Parab

Adv. S.S.Girsagar

Charulata Krushna Parab @ Ankita Anand Sawant

Sarita Krushna Parab @ Priya Promod Prab

Adv. S.S.Girsagar

Samita Krushna Parab @ Rajeshri Rajandra Dhuri

Adv. S.S.Girsagar

Respondent(s)

Krushna Ramchandra Parab etc. 4 desease Advocate - GEERSAGAR SUDARSHAN SHRIPAD

Kallpana Krushna Parab

Sadanand Bhiva Kadam

Sou. Sunita Sadanand Kadam

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malvan

17-04-2026

Awaiting Summons

11-03-2026

Awaiting Summons

09-01-2026

Awaiting Summons

21-11-2025

Awaiting Summons

29-10-2025

Awaiting Summons

Interim Orders

11-01-2017
Order on Exhibit

Court Order Summary The court rejected the petitions of defendants 3 and 4 challenging the previous order and dismissed their application for relief. The court upheld that defendants 3 and 4 should file their bail application with the proper documentation and ordered them to deposit Rs. 200 as cost, while defendant 2's plea for extension was rejected as the reasons provided were insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Order Summary The court rejected the petitions of defendants 3 and 4 challenging the previous order and dismissed their application for relief. The court upheld that defendants 3 and 4 should file their bail application with the proper documentation and ordered them to deposit Rs. 200 as cost, while defendant 2's plea for extension was rejected as the reasons provided were insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Malvan All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case