Balkrushna shivdas Gurav, etc. vs Mahadev vishvanath Gurav, etc. Advocate - Tamboli Mahamood Gulab — 7/2019
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO100002832019
Next Hearing
22nd June 2026
Filing Number
49/2019
Filing Date
22-01-2019
Registration No
7/2019
Registration Date
22-01-2019
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Malshiras
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Malshiras
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Balkrushna shivdas Gurav, etc.
Adv. Phade Dilip A.
shankar santram Gurav
Respondent(s)
Mahadev vishvanath Gurav, etc. Advocate - Tamboli Mahamood Gulab
Gourihar vishvanath Gurav
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Malshiras
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 22-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 7/2019 Outcome: The court ALLOWED the petitioner's application and SET ASIDE the "stay of cross-examination" order, permitting the respondent to continue cross-examination. The petitioner had sought to cancel a previous order that halted their cross-examination, citing that the respondent failed to appear on 02.09.2024 due to illness. The court found the petitioner's reasons valid and necessary for justice, ruling that denying the opportunity for cross-examination would amount to denial of justice. The court emphasized that complete evidence from both parties is essential for proper adjudication on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 7/2019 Outcome: The court ALLOWED the petitioner's application and SET ASIDE the "stay of cross-examination" order, permitting the respondent to continue cross-examination. The petitioner had sought to cancel a previous order that halted their cross-examination, citing that the respondent failed to appear on 02.09.2024 due to illness. The court found the petitioner's reasons valid and necessary for justice, ruling that denying the opportunity for cross-examination would amount to denial of justice. The court emphasized that complete evidence from both parties is essential for proper adjudication on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts