Hemlata Mahadev Kore vs Sudha Balasaheb Vader Advocate - Narwadkar Chanrdashekhar Shivaji — 27/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 10,22,38,. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 18th April 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHSN020001162024
Next Hearing
18th April 2026
e-Filing Number
23-01-2024
Filing Number
125/2024
Filing Date
24-01-2024
Registration No
27/2024
Registration Date
24-01-2024
Court
Civil Court Senior Division ,Sangli
Judge
2-JT CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION SANGLI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Hemlata Mahadev Kore
Adv. KOTWAL FARUK NAZIRAHMED
Respondent(s)
Sudha Balasaheb Vader Advocate - Narwadkar Chanrdashekhar Shivaji
Shila Mallappa Khurpe
Dipali Ravindra Adagale
Manager/ Secratary Bedag Vivdh Karykari Sahkari Scoiety Bedag
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JT CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION SANGLI
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 18-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 07-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 17-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 17-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the plaintiff's application to implead a third-party purchaser (Rukmini Abaso Omase) as a defendant in the suit for specific performance and possession. The court found that since the defendants admitted to executing a sale-deed of the property during the suit's pendency (subject to the suit's decision), impleading the purchaser was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and potential hurdles in decree execution. The plaintiff was directed to carry out necessary amendments within the stipulated period and submit the amended copy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the plaintiff's application to implead a third-party purchaser (Rukmini Abaso Omase) as a defendant in the suit for specific performance and possession. The court found that since the defendants admitted to executing a sale-deed of the property during the suit's pendency (subject to the suit's decision), impleading the purchaser was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and potential hurdles in decree execution. The plaintiff was directed to carry out necessary amendments within the stipulated period and submit the amended copy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts