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

Awaiting Notice

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

Specific Relief Act Section 38

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

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

04-09-2024
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case