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
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
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
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts