Kundalik Mahadev Khot vs Prakash Virpanna Chambhar Alias Kamble Advocate - Bangar Shrinivas Subhash — 177/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 10,38,. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHSN020011382025
Next Hearing
20th April 2026
e-Filing Number
14-06-2025
Filing Number
1197/2025
Filing Date
16-06-2025
Registration No
177/2025
Registration Date
16-06-2025
Court
Civil Court Senior Division ,Sangli
Judge
2-JT CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION SANGLI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kundalik Mahadev Khot
Adv. Gavade Sudhir Rajaram
Respondent(s)
Prakash Virpanna Chambhar Alias Kamble Advocate - Bangar Shrinivas Subhash
Janabai Virpanna Kamble Alias Chambhar
Anita Rajesh Tomake
Rekha Rajendra Mane
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 11-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 09-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 07-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 25-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the application (petition No. 30) filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing an affidavit/statement by Respondent No. 1, who was undergoing medical treatment for gangrene and mobility issues. The court found the reasons for delay justified and permitted the respondent to file the required affidavit/statement, noting that denying this would prejudice the respondent's right to present their case and that both parties should have an opportunity to raise their arguments in a single proceeding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the application (petition No. 30) filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing an affidavit/statement by Respondent No. 1, who was undergoing medical treatment for gangrene and mobility issues. The court found the reasons for delay justified and permitted the respondent to file the required affidavit/statement, noting that denying this would prejudice the respondent's right to present their case and that both parties should have an opportunity to raise their arguments in a single proceeding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts