Sou. Mandodari Dongare vs Sagar Gavane Advocate - Gosavi S. A. — 513/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED / REJECTED OTHERWISE on 21st April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO070006232017
Filing Number
665/2017
Filing Date
05-09-2017
Registration No
513/2017
Registration Date
05-09-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur
Judge
1-JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. PANDHARPUR
Decision Date
21st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED / REJECTED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sou. Mandodari Dongare
Adv. Pathan Mainoddin Mahamud
Respondent(s)
Sagar Gavane Advocate - Gosavi S. A.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. PANDHARPUR
Disposed
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 19-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 07-11-2025 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 513/2017 The Joint Civil Court dismissed petitioner Mandodari Dongare's perpetual injunction suit under Order 9 Rule 3 of the CPC due to lack of prosecution. Despite the case being pending for over 8 years with issues framed in April 2022, the plaintiff failed to lead evidence and did not appear for the final hearing on 21 April 2026, despite being granted a six-month extension for compromise talks. The court ruled that the plaintiff's absence and inaction demonstrated loss of interest in proceeding. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 513/2017 The Joint Civil Court dismissed petitioner Mandodari Dongare's perpetual injunction suit under Order 9 Rule 3 of the CPC due to lack of prosecution. Despite the case being pending for over 8 years with issues framed in April 2022, the plaintiff failed to lead evidence and did not appear for the final hearing on 21 April 2026, despite being granted a six-month extension for compromise talks. The court ruled that the plaintiff's absence and inaction demonstrated loss of interest in proceeding. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts