Sanjay Mahaling Karve vs Dnyaneshwar Ramling Gadache — 54/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O39,2A. Status: Stayed by Honble High Court. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application
CNR: MHSN020004292023
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
397/2023
Filing Date
09-02-2023
Registration No
54/2023
Registration Date
10-02-2023
Court
Civil Court Senior Division ,Sangli
Judge
5-Vth JT CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. J.M.F.C. SANGLI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sanjay Mahaling Karve
Adv. Patil Hanamant Ramchandra
Mahadevi Mahaling Karve
Adv. Patil Hanamant Ramchandra
Respondent(s)
Dnyaneshwar Ramling Gadache
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Vth JT CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. J.M.F.C. SANGLI
Stayed by Honble High Court
Stayed by Honble High Court
Stayed by Honble High Court
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Stayed by Honble High Court | |
| 19-01-2026 | Stayed by Honble High Court | |
| 29-11-2025 | Stayed by Honble High Court | |
| 28-10-2025 | Evidence | |
| 25-09-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the defendant's (Dnyaneshwar Gadache) application to amend his pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found that the defendant had sufficient knowledge to include the electricity consumer details in his original pleadings filed on 11.09.2023, but failed to do so, and the amendment was sought at a belated stage after trial had commenced. The court determined that allowing the amendment would prejudice the plaintiff and violate procedural requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the defendant's (Dnyaneshwar Gadache) application to amend his pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found that the defendant had sufficient knowledge to include the electricity consumer details in his original pleadings filed on 11.09.2023, but failed to do so, and the amendment was sought at a belated stage after trial had commenced. The court determined that allowing the amendment would prejudice the plaintiff and violate procedural requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts