Hanmant Pawar vs Bhimrao Pawar Advocate - Zambre Chandrakant D — 272/2019
Case under Hindu Succession Act Section 6. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO070003262019
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
361/2019
Filing Date
26-06-2019
Registration No
272/2019
Registration Date
28-06-2019
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur
Judge
6-2nd Jt. CJJD and J.M.F.C. Pandhaprur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Hanmant Pawar
Adv. Kulkarni Sudhir R
Respondent(s)
Bhimrao Pawar Advocate - Zambre Chandrakant D
Bharat Pawar
Gulab Pawar
Satyavan Pawar
Shalan Jadhav
Sugran Salunkhe
Manjusha Pawar
Nitin Pawar
Rajendra Pawar
Pratap Pawar
kiran Pawar
Sani Pawar
Hearing History
Judge: 6-2nd Jt. CJJD and J.M.F.C. Pandhaprur
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 23-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 13-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 27-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 13-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 272/2019 Plaintiff Hanmant Pawar's application to stay prior court orders (Exh. 271 and 278) pending his review petition was rejected. The court found no merit in the stay request, noting that certified copies of the challenged orders were available and the prior orders appointing a Court Commissioner to supervise sugarcane harvesting had been decided on merit with fair hearing to both parties. The court ruled that the plaintiff's remedy of mesne profit if the suit succeeds provides adequate protection, and orders cannot be stayed merely to file a review petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 272/2019 Plaintiff Hanmant Pawar's application to stay prior court orders (Exh. 271 and 278) pending his review petition was rejected. The court found no merit in the stay request, noting that certified copies of the challenged orders were available and the prior orders appointing a Court Commissioner to supervise sugarcane harvesting had been decided on merit with fair hearing to both parties. The court ruled that the plaintiff's remedy of mesne profit if the suit succeeds provides adequate protection, and orders cannot be stayed merely to file a review petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts