Dharmendra Dhondiba Ghadage vs Balasaheb Ramchandra Ghadage — 170/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Awaiting Notice. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO070001502024
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
e-Filing Number
02-03-2024
Filing Number
170/2024
Filing Date
02-03-2024
Registration No
170/2024
Registration Date
08-04-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur
Judge
7-4th JT. CJJD JMFC PANDHARPUR PANDHARPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dharmendra Dhondiba Ghadage
Adv. SARADE DATTATRAYA NAVANATH
Respondent(s)
Balasaheb Ramchandra Ghadage
Mirabai Nagesh Umbrajkar
Sunanda Alias Laxmi Ravindra Hivrekar
Pratibhagiri Prasad Meharkar
Hearing History
Judge: 7-4th JT. CJJD JMFC PANDHARPUR PANDHARPUR
Awaiting Notice
Awaiting Notice
Awaiting Notice
Awaiting Notice
Awaiting Notice
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Awaiting Notice |
| 23-01-2026 | Awaiting Notice |
| 02-01-2026 | Awaiting Notice |
| 22-12-2025 | Awaiting Notice |
| 29-10-2025 | Awaiting Notice |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS 170/2024 - Dharmendra Ghadage vs. Balasaheb Ghadage & ors. The court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The plaintiff sought to add an injunction clause against defendant no. 5 (who acquired the property after original defendant no. 1's death during suit pendency). The court found the amendment necessary to determine the real controversy, noting that defendant no. 5 essentially stepped into defendant no. 1's shoes and the amendment did not fundamentally alter the suit's nature. Trial had not yet commenced, and no prejudice to the defendant was demonstrated. Costs of Rs. 400 were imposed on the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS 170/2024 - Dharmendra Ghadage vs. Balasaheb Ghadage & ors. The court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The plaintiff sought to add an injunction clause against defendant no. 5 (who acquired the property after original defendant no. 1's death during suit pendency). The court found the amendment necessary to determine the real controversy, noting that defendant no. 5 essentially stepped into defendant no. 1's shoes and the amendment did not fundamentally alter the suit's nature. Trial had not yet commenced, and no prejudice to the defendant was demonstrated. Costs of Rs. 400 were imposed on the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts