Bhirav Savata Shinde vs Vikas Balwant Shete Advocate - Karanjkar Pravin Parshuram — 286/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 36. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHSO120010592021
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
1695/2021
Filing Date
16-10-2021
Registration No
286/2021
Registration Date
21-10-2021
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Barshi
Judge
2-C.J.S.D.BARSHI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhirav Savata Shinde
Adv. Kshirsagar Kuldip S
Respondent(s)
Vikas Balwant Shete Advocate - Karanjkar Pravin Parshuram
Mahesh Balwant Shete
Adv. Karanjkar Pravin Parshuram
Kiran Shankar Gude
Vinod Narayan Kasabe
Utreshwar Anantrao Pingale
Swati Utreshwar Pingale
Hearing History
Judge: 2-C.J.S.D.BARSHI
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 04-04-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 20-02-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 06-02-2026 | Defence Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Sp.C.S. No. 286/2021 (Bhairav v. Vikas & Ors.) Defendants 5 and 6 applied to exhibit documents from Deputy Registrar Office (Baras Dast Nos. 3326/2021 and 4468/2021) that were referred to in their chief examination but not formally exhibited. The court rejected the application, holding that document exhibition requires three sequential stages: production, tendering in evidence, and formal exhibition per the Evidence Act. Since defendants failed to properly exhibit documents during chief examination, the plaintiff had no opportunity to cross-examine them. The court ruled that documents cannot be exhibited at this late stage without compliance with proper procedural requirements. Costs awarded against defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sp.C.S. No. 286/2021 (Bhairav v. Vikas & Ors.) Defendants 5 and 6 applied to exhibit documents from Deputy Registrar Office (Baras Dast Nos. 3326/2021 and 4468/2021) that were referred to in their chief examination but not formally exhibited. The court rejected the application, holding that document exhibition requires three sequential stages: production, tendering in evidence, and formal exhibition per the Evidence Act. Since defendants failed to properly exhibit documents during chief examination, the plaintiff had no opportunity to cross-examine them. The court ruled that documents cannot be exhibited at this late stage without compliance with proper procedural requirements. Costs awarded against defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts