Prathamesh Panse etc. vs Sudhir Panse etc. Advocate - Khandelwal Sanjay B — 1300180/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section --. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130003982015
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
1300226/2015
Filing Date
26-02-2015
Registration No
1300180/2015
Registration Date
02-03-2015
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Prathamesh Panse etc.
Adv. Kulkarni Prasad J
Priyanka Panse
Adv. Khandelwal Sanjay B
Sanjivani Panse
Respondent(s)
Sudhir Panse etc. Advocate - Khandelwal Sanjay B
Sushil Panse
Adv. K.B.Kulkarni
Padmaja Kulkarni
Adv. Alat Pradeep M
Shaila Kulkarni
Adv. Kulkarni Anupama D
Jayashri Bhosekar
Adv. Kulkarni Anupama D
Ujwal Danekar
Adv. Kulkarni Anupama D
Parvati Panse
Adv. Kulkarni Anupama D
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 24-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 25-02-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 19-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS 1300180/2015 (Prathamesh Panse v. Sudhir Panse) Defendant No. 3 sought permission to file a written statement after the statutory period had expired and a default order was already passed against her in 2016. The court allowed the application on 19/08/2023, recognizing that she was a necessary party to the partition suit claiming a 1/3rd share in the disputed properties. However, the permission was granted subject to heavy costs: Rs. 5,000 payable to plaintiffs and Rs. 1,000 to the Legal Services Authority, both conditions precedent, with failure to pay resulting in vacation of the order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS 1300180/2015 (Prathamesh Panse v. Sudhir Panse) Defendant No. 3 sought permission to file a written statement after the statutory period had expired and a default order was already passed against her in 2016. The court allowed the application on 19/08/2023, recognizing that she was a necessary party to the partition suit claiming a 1/3rd share in the disputed properties. However, the permission was granted subject to heavy costs: Rs. 5,000 payable to plaintiffs and Rs. 1,000 to the Legal Services Authority, both conditions precedent, with failure to pay resulting in vacation of the order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts