Vivekanand Shahkari Shahbhagidari Grahnirman Sanstha Kupwad vs Vaibhav Prakash Dhobale Advocate - Devkar Onkar Vijaykumar — 354/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38,. Status: W.S. and Say. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSN020024162025
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
e-Filing Number
26-11-2025
Filing Number
2520/2025
Filing Date
29-11-2025
Registration No
354/2025
Registration Date
01-12-2025
Court
Civil Court Senior Division ,Sangli
Judge
5-Vth JT CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. J.M.F.C. SANGLI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vivekanand Shahkari Shahbhagidari Grahnirman Sanstha Kupwad
Adv. Shelar Ashok Bhau
Respondent(s)
Vaibhav Prakash Dhobale Advocate - Devkar Onkar Vijaykumar
Prashant Prakash Dhobale
Sushant Prakash Dhobale
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Vth JT CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. J.M.F.C. SANGLI
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | W.S. and Say | |
| 07-03-2026 | W.S. and Say | |
| 26-02-2026 | W.S. and Say | |
| 23-02-2026 | W.S. and Say | |
| 09-02-2026 | W.S. and Say |
Interim Orders
Summary: In RCS No.354/2025 (Vivekanand Sah. Gruhnirman Sanstha v. Vaibhav Dhobale), the court ordered that the suit proceed without the defendants' written statement and reply to Exhibits 1 and 5. The defendants were found to have acted with lethargy, failing to appear on the last two dates and providing no sufficient reason for delaying their written statement beyond the statutory 30-day period, while the plaintiff's advocate remained diligent throughout. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In RCS No.354/2025 (Vivekanand Sah. Gruhnirman Sanstha v. Vaibhav Dhobale), the court ordered that the suit proceed without the defendants' written statement and reply to Exhibits 1 and 5. The defendants were found to have acted with lethargy, failing to appear on the last two dates and providing no sufficient reason for delaying their written statement beyond the statutory 30-day period, while the plaintiff's advocate remained diligent throughout. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts