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

Argument on Exh.____Unready

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

Specific Relief Act Section 10,22,38,

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

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

23-01-2025
Order on T.I.
07-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Senior Division ,Sangli All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case