Nilesh Subhash alias Subhashchandra Gandhi vs Arihant Developers Thr Partner Shailesh Mishrilal Kavediya etc Advocate - Sheth Suhas Shantaram — 116/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R2. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHSN020007562016
Next Hearing
07th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
839/2016
Filing Date
07-06-2016
Registration No
116/2016
Registration Date
13-06-2016
Court
Civil Court Senior Division ,Sangli
Judge
2-JT CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION SANGLI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nilesh Subhash alias Subhashchandra Gandhi
Adv. Jadhav Balaso Sadashiv
Respondent(s)
Arihant Developers Thr Partner Shailesh Mishrilal Kavediya etc Advocate - Sheth Suhas Shantaram
Arihant Developers Thr Pushpa Vijay Kavediya
Adv. Kulkarni Jayant Shamarao
Arihant Developers Thr Partner Sachin Vijay Kavediya
Adv. Kulkarni Jayant Shamarao
Vijay Mishrilal Kavediya
Adv. Kulkarni Jayant Shamarao
Yogesh Gurudev Gadgil
Yuvraj Appaso Neharkar
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 07-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 18-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 02-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 12-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the petition (Application No. 129) filed by the petitioner against defendants 1, 3, and 4. The court found that while a "no objection" order was previously passed against the defendants on 29/10/2025 due to their failure to submit their response, the delay was justified by circumstances including financial hardship arising from medical expenses of a deceased family member. The court held that denying the petition would cause irreparable harm to the defendants and ordered them to pay costs of Rs. 500 to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the petition (Application No. 129) filed by the petitioner against defendants 1, 3, and 4. The court found that while a "no objection" order was previously passed against the defendants on 29/10/2025 due to their failure to submit their response, the delay was justified by circumstances including financial hardship arising from medical expenses of a deceased family member. The court held that denying the petition would cause irreparable harm to the defendants and ordered them to pay costs of Rs. 500 to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts