Sangita Sukhadev Dorle vs Indabai Amrut Dorle and 5 Advocate - Rodage Sambhajirao S — 39/2026

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 22. Status: Order on Exh. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHSO200001852026

Order on Exh

Next Hearing

10th June 2026

e-Filing Number

27-01-2026

Filing Number

49/2026

Filing Date

28-01-2026

Registration No

39/2026

Registration Date

29-01-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Sangola

Judge

8-IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 22

Petitioner(s)

Sangita Sukhadev Dorle

Adv. Dhere Sachin Jalindar

Respondent(s)

Indabai Amrut Dorle and 5 Advocate - Rodage Sambhajirao S

Vikas Amrut Dorle

Aappaso Amrut Dorle

Laxman Bhimrao Sope

Pawan Vasant Nikam

Pro Zil Green Power Nine private limited Company Through Chetan Rakesh Meharotra

Hearing History

Judge: 8-IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

28-05-2026

Order on Exh

08-05-2026

Order on Exh

30-04-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

27-04-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

22-04-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

Interim Orders

28-05-2026
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 39/2026 Outcome: The application for stay of suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected. The court found that defendants failed to establish that the matter in issue in the present suit (perpetual injunction regarding block No. 183) was directly and substantially identical to the previously instituted suit (RCS No. 470/2024 for partition involving 11 properties and 79 defendants). The court noted that since defendants had not filed written statements in either suit, pleadings were incomplete and issues had not crystallized, making it impossible to meaningfully compare the disputes at this premature stage. Costs awarded to the plaintiff in the main cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 39/2026 Outcome: The application for stay of suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected. The court found that defendants failed to establish that the matter in issue in the present suit (perpetual injunction regarding block No. 183) was directly and substantially identical to the previously instituted suit (RCS No. 470/2024 for partition involving 11 properties and 79 defendants). The court noted that since defendants had not filed written statements in either suit, pleadings were incomplete and issues had not crystallized, making it impossible to meaningfully compare the disputes at this premature stage. Costs awarded to the plaintiff in the main cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Sangola All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case