Samir Jalajuddin Pirjade vs Tajuddin Jalajuddin Pirjade - 6 Advocate - Hadadare Nitin Vasantrao — 526/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 0. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 04th May 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSN150054992020
Next Hearing
04th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2532/2020
Filing Date
15-12-2020
Registration No
526/2020
Registration Date
15-12-2020
Court
Civil Judge Senior Division Vita
Judge
2-Jt Civil Judge Jr Dn JMFC Vita
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Samir Jalajuddin Pirjade
Adv. Jadhav Santoshkumar Narayan
Respondent(s)
Tajuddin Jalajuddin Pirjade - 6 Advocate - Hadadare Nitin Vasantrao
Rashidabi Pirjade
Adv. Patel A. S.
Saddam Kaji
Jahira Kaji
Rajiyabanu Kaji
Adv. Uthale Ramaji Anant
Sultana Pirjade
Hafija Mullani
Adv. Marle Abhijeet Subhash
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt Civil Judge Jr Dn JMFC Vita
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Amended Plaint
Amended Plaint
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 07-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 10-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 09-02-2026 | Amended Plaint | |
| 27-01-2026 | Amended Plaint |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The plaintiff's application for correction of a property number in the plaint (from "1262" to "1232") due to a typographical error was ALLOWED with costs. The court found that the error was merely a typing mistake and that the correct property description was already adequately mentioned in the plaint, so the correction would not prejudice the defendant or alter the suit's merit. The plaintiff was ordered to pay a penalty of Rs. 200 to the defendant and file the corrected plaint in the records within the prescribed time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The plaintiff's application for correction of a property number in the plaint (from "1262" to "1232") due to a typographical error was ALLOWED with costs. The court found that the error was merely a typing mistake and that the correct property description was already adequately mentioned in the plaint, so the correction would not prejudice the defendant or alter the suit's merit. The plaintiff was ordered to pay a penalty of Rs. 200 to the defendant and file the corrected plaint in the records within the prescribed time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts