Sandip Sampatrao Naik (Ramoshi) vs Sanpatrao Subrao Naik(Ramoshi) Advocate - Atpadkar Vijayaratna Nivant — 112/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Partitaion. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 07th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSN070008752016
Filing Number
183/2016
Filing Date
25-08-2016
Registration No
112/2016
Registration Date
26-08-2016
Court
Civil Court Junior Division,kmahankal
Judge
3-Jt.C.J.J.D J.M.F.C. KAVATHEMAHANKAL
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sandip Sampatrao Naik (Ramoshi)
Adv. Patil Tatyasaheb Dnyanoba
Respondent(s)
Sanpatrao Subrao Naik(Ramoshi) Advocate - Atpadkar Vijayaratna Nivant
Pradip Sampatrao Naik (Ramoshi)
Sou Sindhubai Sampatrao Naik (Ramoshi)
Umaji Subrao Naik(Ramoshi)
Vishnu Subrao Naik (Ramoshi)
Sou Mangal Keshav Patole
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Jt.C.J.J.D J.M.F.C. KAVATHEMAHANKAL
Disposed
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Steps_Unready
Steps_Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-01-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 21-11-2025 | Dismissal Order |
| 30-08-2025 | Steps_Unready |
| 30-04-2025 | Steps_Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Kavathe Mahankal Joint Civil Judge dismissed the suit of Sandip Naik versus Sampatrao Naik under Order IX Rule 3 of the CPC 1908 due to the plaintiff's continuous absence and lack of progress for over 10 years. The court found that despite being allowed to amend the plaint in 2022, the plaintiff neither filed the amended plaint on record nor presented evidence, and remained absent even on the final hearing date, demonstrating loss of interest in the case. Each party bears their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: The Kavathe Mahankal Joint Civil Judge dismissed the suit of Sandip Naik versus Sampatrao Naik under Order IX Rule 3 of the CPC 1908 due to the plaintiff's continuous absence and lack of progress for over 10 years. The court found that despite being allowed to amend the plaint in 2022, the plaintiff neither filed the amended plaint on record nor presented evidence, and remained absent even on the final hearing date, demonstrating loss of interest in the case. Each party bears their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts