Bhumi Dattatray Banasode Guardian Sonali Dattatray Banasode(Legal Heir) vs Dattatray Urf Datta Srimant Banasode — 381/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO170020452025
Next Hearing
09th July 2026
e-Filing Number
08-07-2025
Filing Number
487/2025
Filing Date
11-07-2025
Registration No
381/2025
Registration Date
14-07-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Madha
Judge
4-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Madha
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhumi Dattatray Banasode Guardian Sonali Dattatray Banasode(Legal Heir)
Adv. PAWAR PRASHANT BALBHIM
Vanshika Dattatray Banasode Guradian Sonali Banasode(Legal Heir)
Adv. PAWAR PRASHANT BALBHIM
Sonali Dattatray Banasode
Adv. PAWAR PRASHANT BALBHIM
Respondent(s)
Dattatray Urf Datta Srimant Banasode
Nitin Shrimant Banasode
Vandana Bapu Sarvade
Alakabai Shrimant Banasode
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Madha
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 31-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 13-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 26-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 17-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case 381/2025 Summary: The court allowed defendants' application to file a written statement after the statutory 90-day period, citing the suit's nature (partition and possession of immovable property) and the importance of defendant participation in reaching a just decision. However, the court imposed costs of Rs. 300/- payable to the plaintiff as compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delayed filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 381/2025 Summary: The court allowed defendants' application to file a written statement after the statutory 90-day period, citing the suit's nature (partition and possession of immovable property) and the importance of defendant participation in reaching a just decision. However, the court imposed costs of Rs. 300/- payable to the plaintiff as compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delayed filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts