Deepak Hari Ghadi vs Vitthal Anant Ghadi Advocate - GAVANKAR SAMEER SURESH — 96/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O-7,R-1. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 29th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSI070005262019
Next Hearing
29th June 2026
Filing Number
155/2019
Filing Date
08-11-2019
Registration No
96/2019
Registration Date
08-11-2019
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Malvan
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malvan
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Deepak Hari Ghadi
Adv. GOVEKAR HEMENDRA LAXMAN
Vitesh Suryakant Ghadigaonkar
Respondent(s)
Vitthal Anant Ghadi Advocate - GAVANKAR SAMEER SURESH
Prabhakar Dhondu Ghadi
Adv. exparty
Akshata Arun Ghadigaonkar Before Marriage Sangita Vitthal Ghadi
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malvan
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 11-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 21-01-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 26-11-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 13-10-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary The court allowed the plaintiffs' application to implead a proposed defendant no.3 (Akshata Arun Ghadigaonkar) in the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. The court found that the proposed defendant is a necessary party since the property was transferred to her via a gift deed, and the amendment is not inconsistent with earlier pleadings and causes no prejudice to defendants. The plaintiffs must carry out the amendments and provide an amended plaint to defendants free of cost on or before the next hearing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court allowed the plaintiffs' application to implead a proposed defendant no.3 (Akshata Arun Ghadigaonkar) in the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. The court found that the proposed defendant is a necessary party since the property was transferred to her via a gift deed, and the amendment is not inconsistent with earlier pleadings and causes no prejudice to defendants. The plaintiffs must carry out the amendments and provide an amended plaint to defendants free of cost on or before the next hearing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts