Sadashiv Anandrav More vs Arun Laxman Gulve — 123/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO150016222024
Next Hearing
20th June 2026
e-Filing Number
24-09-2024
Filing Number
295/2024
Filing Date
24-09-2024
Registration No
123/2024
Registration Date
25-09-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division ,Akkalkot
Judge
1-Jt. C.J.J.D. and JMFC, Akkalkot
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sadashiv Anandrav More
Adv. Kurdukar Manasi Anand
Respondent(s)
Arun Laxman Gulve
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt. C.J.J.D. and JMFC, Akkalkot
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 04-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 17-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case 123/2024 Summary: Defendant Arun Gulve successfully challenged a "No Written Statement" order passed against him on 17/01/2025. The court allowed his application, set aside the no written statement order, and condoned the delay in filing his written statement in the perpetual injunction suit filed by plaintiff Sadashiv More. The court found that while the defendant's reason (non-receipt of documents) was not entirely satisfactory, rejecting the application would cause irreparable harm by depriving him of his right to present his defence, whereas allowing it would cause minimal prejudice to plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 123/2024 Summary: Defendant Arun Gulve successfully challenged a "No Written Statement" order passed against him on 17/01/2025. The court allowed his application, set aside the no written statement order, and condoned the delay in filing his written statement in the perpetual injunction suit filed by plaintiff Sadashiv More. The court found that while the defendant's reason (non-receipt of documents) was not entirely satisfactory, rejecting the application would cause irreparable harm by depriving him of his right to present his defence, whereas allowing it would cause minimal prejudice to plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts