Jagdish Satyawan Naik vs Yestelin Fransis Farnandis etc. 3 Advocate - MAJGAONKAR GURUDAS RAGHUNATH — 62/2021

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 1. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHSI070003362021

Argument on Exh.____Unready

Next Hearing

25th June 2026

Filing Number

89/2021

Filing Date

15-07-2021

Registration No

62/2021

Registration Date

16-07-2021

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Malvan

Judge

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

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 1
Ia/1/2021 Classification : Setting Aside Ex-parte Decree Section Arvind Laxman DalviJagdish Satyawan Naik
Ia/2/2022 Classification : Permission to File Written Statement After 30 or 90 Days Section Jagdish Satyawan Naik

Petitioner(s)

Jagdish Satyawan Naik

Adv. Mondkar Amruta Arvind

Respondent(s)

Yestelin Fransis Farnandis etc. 3 Advocate - MAJGAONKAR GURUDAS RAGHUNATH

Anton Hales Farnandis

Adv. PARKAR GANESH RAGHUNATH

Arvind Lakshman Dalvi

Adv. SAWANT PRADEEP BABAJI

Hearing History

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

23-03-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

11-03-2026

Steps_Unready

25-02-2026

Steps_Unready

21-02-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

22-01-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

Interim Orders

25-02-2026
Order on Exhibit

Summary: The court partly allowed Defendant No. 3's application seeking plaint rejection. The suit was found to be undervalued—the plaintiff valued it at ₹1,000 but should have valued it at ₹3,00,000 based on the contract consideration under Maharashtra Court Fees Act Section 6(ix)(a). However, instead of outright rejection, the plaintiff was granted one month to correct the valuation and pay requisite court fees; failure to do so will result in plaint rejection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court partly allowed Defendant No. 3's application seeking plaint rejection. The suit was found to be undervalued—the plaintiff valued it at ₹1,000 but should have valued it at ₹3,00,000 based on the contract consideration under Maharashtra Court Fees Act Section 6(ix)(a). However, instead of outright rejection, the plaintiff was granted one month to correct the valuation and pay requisite court fees; failure to do so will result in plaint rejection. 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

Civil Court Junior Division , Malvan All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case