Sou. Parvati Yadav. etc.1. vs Sou. Nirmala Kashid. etc.2. Advocate - Vaidya Ravindra U — 1300308/2014
Case under Indian Succession Act Section 6. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130004422014
Next Hearing
22nd June 2026
Filing Number
1300364/2014
Filing Date
25-03-2014
Registration No
1300308/2014
Registration Date
26-03-2014
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
5-4th Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sou. Parvati Yadav. etc.1.
Adv. Patil Sambhaji S
Ku. Archana Yadav.
Adv. Patil Sambhaji S
Respondent(s)
Sou. Nirmala Kashid. etc.2. Advocate - Vaidya Ravindra U
Smt. Bhagubai Yadav.
Bhimrao Yadav.
Hearing History
Judge: 5-4th Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 04-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 28-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 01-04-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 1300308/2014 Court: 4th Joint Civil Judge, Barshi Date: 26/11/2025 The petitioners (Parvati Yadav and Archana Yadav) sought to set aside a previous order imposing an evidence ban. The court allowed the petition, finding that the petitioners' evidence was essential for deciding the case on merits and that natural justice required the evidence ban order be set aside. The court noted the case had been pending since 2014 and that denying the petitioners an opportunity to present evidence would be unjust. Order: Petition granted on the condition that petitioners pay Rs. 700 as costs to respondent; the evidence ban order is set aside; and petitioners must pay the costs amount by the next hearing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 1300308/2014 Court: 4th Joint Civil Judge, Barshi Date: 26/11/2025 The petitioners (Parvati Yadav and Archana Yadav) sought to set aside a previous order imposing an evidence ban. The court allowed the petition, finding that the petitioners' evidence was essential for deciding the case on merits and that natural justice required the evidence ban order be set aside. The court noted the case had been pending since 2014 and that denying the petitioners an opportunity to present evidence would be unjust. Order: Petition granted on the condition that petitioners pay Rs. 700 as costs to respondent; the evidence ban order is set aside; and petitioners must pay the costs amount by the next hearing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts