Suryakant Annaso Sutar vs Sharad Vasantrao Jadhav etc.11 Advocate - Kulkarni Anilkumar Nageshrao — 200068/2012
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26andord7R.1. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHSN020007952012
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
201210/2012
Filing Date
21-03-2012
Registration No
200068/2012
Registration Date
27-03-2012
Court
Civil Court Senior Division ,Sangli
Judge
2-JT CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION SANGLI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Suryakant Annaso Sutar
Adv. Malgaonkar Sandeep Goutam
Respondent(s)
Sharad Vasantrao Jadhav etc.11 Advocate - Kulkarni Anilkumar Nageshrao
Shafik Makbul Kurne
Adv. Gramopadhye M. H.
Sanjay Satappa Tashildar
Adv. Satpute Ravindra Baburao
Jamil Shamshuddin Bagwan
Adv. Satpute Ravindra Baburao
Navid Fardin Hangad
Adv. KHEMLAPURE BHARATKUMAR BALLAPPA
Annasaheb Appa Patil
Adv. KHEMLAPURE BHARATKUMAR BALLAPPA
Aruna Subhash Magdum
Adv. GADRE ASHOK VINAYAK
Sachin Subhash Magdum
Adv. GADRE ASHOK VINAYAK
Rafik Makbul Kurne
Adv. Kulkarni Anilkumar Nageshrao
Comm.S.M.K.Mahanagarpalika Sangli
Adv. Narwadkar Prashant Vasantrao
State Of Maharashtra
Adv. AGP
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JT CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION SANGLI
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Judgment
Judgment
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 24-02-2026 | Judgment | |
| 11-02-2026 | Judgment |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court directed defendants No. 1 and 9 (who filed a common written statement) to resolve between themselves which advocate will lead the case going forward. Since defendant No. 9's advocate already conducted cross-examination of the plaintiff, the court allowed defendant No. 1's advocate to conduct additional cross-examination only regarding defendant No. 1's specific defenses, after the advocates decide on unified representation. Defendant No. 1's counter-claim was rejected for non-payment of court fees. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court directed defendants No. 1 and 9 (who filed a common written statement) to resolve between themselves which advocate will lead the case going forward. Since defendant No. 9's advocate already conducted cross-examination of the plaintiff, the court allowed defendant No. 1's advocate to conduct additional cross-examination only regarding defendant No. 1's specific defenses, after the advocates decide on unified representation. Defendant No. 1's counter-claim was rejected for non-payment of court fees. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts