Vaijinath Abhimanyu Jadhav vs Santosh Vikram Jadhav — 48/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Amended Plaint. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130000472022
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
54/2022
Filing Date
12-01-2022
Registration No
48/2022
Registration Date
13-01-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
5-4th Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vaijinath Abhimanyu Jadhav
Adv. Gund Sahadev Mahadev
Respondent(s)
Santosh Vikram Jadhav
Sanjay Vikram Jadhav
Ganesh Vikram Jadhav
Sunil Vikram Jadhav
Bhagabai Vikram Jadhav
Maruti Babruvan Jadhav
Vitthal Babruvan Jadhav
Prasad Harishchandra Jadhav
Sharada Harishchandra Jadhav
Mohan Abhimanyu Jadhav
Sudamati Ranganath Godage
Mahananda Arun Gaikwad
Sunanda Janardan Shinde
Hearing History
Judge: 5-4th Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Amended Plaint
Amended Plaint
Amended Plaint
Amended Plaint
Amended Plaint
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Amended Plaint |
| 13-01-2026 | Amended Plaint |
| 21-11-2025 | Amended Plaint |
| 31-10-2025 | Amended Plaint |
| 19-09-2025 | Amended Plaint |
Interim Orders
Case 48/2022 - Vaijinath Abhimanyu Jadhav v. Santosh Vikram Jadhav and Others The petitioner's application to amend the suit caption under CPC Order 6 Rule 17 was ALLOWED with costs of Rs. 100/-. The court permitted correction of the respondent's name (Defendant No. 9) to reflect the death of the original defendant and substitution by his legal heir (Defendant No. 8). The court found the amendment formal in nature, necessary for deciding the suit on merits, and non-prejudicial to respondents' interests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 48/2022 - Vaijinath Abhimanyu Jadhav v. Santosh Vikram Jadhav and Others The petitioner's application to amend the suit caption under CPC Order 6 Rule 17 was ALLOWED with costs of Rs. 100/-. The court permitted correction of the respondent's name (Defendant No. 9) to reflect the death of the original defendant and substitution by his legal heir (Defendant No. 8). The court found the amendment formal in nature, necessary for deciding the suit on merits, and non-prejudicial to respondents' interests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts