Hanmant Nivrutti Bhosale vs Mina Hanmant Bhosale Advocate - Ivare Suchita R. — 92/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 02nd July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO190005712024
Next Hearing
02nd July 2026
e-Filing Number
09-03-2024
Filing Number
179/2024
Filing Date
15-03-2024
Registration No
92/2024
Registration Date
16-03-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Mohal
Judge
2-Jt.Civil JudgeJ.D. JMFC Mohol
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Hanmant Nivrutti Bhosale
Adv. DESHPANDE SUDHIR KHANDERAO
Respondent(s)
Mina Hanmant Bhosale Advocate - Ivare Suchita R.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt.Civil JudgeJ.D. JMFC Mohol
Issues
Issues
Compliance
Order on Exh
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | Issues |
| 13-03-2026 | Issues |
| 13-02-2026 | Compliance |
| 06-01-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 26-11-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 92/2024 Hanmant Nivrutti Bhosale v. Mina Hanmant Bhosale The respondent's petition to condone a 14-month 14-day delay in filing an affidavit (kaifiyat) in this property dispute case was partially granted. The court imposed costs of ₹1,000 on the petitioner and condoned the delay, permitting the respondent to file the affidavit after payment. The court found the delay partly justified due to property-related documentation collection requirements, while noting the petitioner's argument that the delay appeared deliberate lacked sufficient substantiation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 92/2024 Hanmant Nivrutti Bhosale v. Mina Hanmant Bhosale The respondent's petition to condone a 14-month 14-day delay in filing an affidavit (kaifiyat) in this property dispute case was partially granted. The court imposed costs of ₹1,000 on the petitioner and condoned the delay, permitting the respondent to file the affidavit after payment. The court found the delay partly justified due to property-related documentation collection requirements, while noting the petitioner's argument that the delay appeared deliberate lacked sufficient substantiation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts