Limbunath Kathwate vs Namdeo Shinde — 290/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Steps. Next hearing: 16th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO070003502023
Next Hearing
16th July 2026
Filing Number
375/2023
Filing Date
06-05-2023
Registration No
290/2023
Registration Date
06-06-2023
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur
Judge
4-3rd JT. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. PANDHARPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Limbunath Kathwate
Adv. Bagal Vikas Devidas
Respondent(s)
Namdeo Shinde
Dattatray Surwase
Siddheshwar Surwase
Raghunath Surwase
Alka Surwase
Bhausaheb Pawar
Hearing History
Judge: 4-3rd JT. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. PANDHARPUR
Steps
Steps
Steps
Steps
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Steps |
| 04-04-2026 | Steps |
| 13-03-2026 | Steps |
| 04-02-2026 | Steps |
| 20-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS 290/2023 The court rejected defendants' application for stay of suit filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants had claimed that the present suit for perpetual injunction was identical to their earlier RCS 455/2017 regarding the same property (Block 725, Palashi village) with similar prayers, warranting a stay to avoid conflicting judgments. However, the court found that since only uncertified xerox copies of the earlier suit were provided with no official record available for comparison, it could not definitively establish that both suits involved identical parties and directly overlapping matters as required by law. Consequently, the application was rejected and the suit proceeds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS 290/2023 The court rejected defendants' application for stay of suit filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants had claimed that the present suit for perpetual injunction was identical to their earlier RCS 455/2017 regarding the same property (Block 725, Palashi village) with similar prayers, warranting a stay to avoid conflicting judgments. However, the court found that since only uncertified xerox copies of the earlier suit were provided with no official record available for comparison, it could not definitively establish that both suits involved identical parties and directly overlapping matters as required by law. Consequently, the application was rejected and the suit proceeds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts