Dattatray Mahalu Gaikwad vs Shridhar Damodar Suryapujari and others — 873/2023

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 16. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.

Evidence Part Heard Next hearing 24-Jun-2026 this date has passed

Spl.C.S. - Spl.Civ.Suit

CNR: MHSO220052232023

Filing Number

2739/2023

Filing Date

14-Aug-2023

Registration No

873/2023

Registration Date

16-Aug-2023

Court

Civil Court Senior Division , Karmala

Judge

1-Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 16

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Dattatray Mahalu Gaikwad

    Adv. Raut B. R.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shridhar Damodar Suryapujari and others

  2. 2.Sufiya Kalim Kazi

  3. 3.Nitesh Vilas Pawar

  4. 4.Hanumant Vilas Pawar

Case History

  1. 24-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary - Case 873/2023 In this specific performance of contract suit, defendants 1-4 successfully sought to set aside a "no cross" order dated 05.03.2026. The court allowed their application because their advocate was unavailable due to medical reasons and they were denied the opportunity to conduct cross-examination. The court held that both parties must have equal opportunity to present their case and set aside the "no cross" order, allowing the defendants to proceed with cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  7. 16-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  8. 24-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  9. 18-Nov-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  10. 07-Oct-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  11. 12-Sep-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  12. 28-Aug-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  13. 19-Aug-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  14. 29-Jul-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  15. 27-Jun-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  16. 05-May-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  17. 21-Apr-2025

    Dismissal Order

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  18. 08-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  19. 26-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  20. 02-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  21. 13-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  22. 15-Oct-2024

    List of Witness

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  23. 19-Aug-2024

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  24. 19-Jul-2024

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  25. 20-Jun-2024

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  26. 15-Mar-2024

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  27. 15-Feb-2024

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  28. 29-Jan-2024

    Reply/Say

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  29. 08-Dec-2023

    Reply/Say

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  30. 29-Nov-2023

    Reply/Say

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  31. 13-Oct-2023

    Reply/Say

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  32. 13-Sep-2023

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  33. 18-Aug-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  34. 14-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 873/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary - Case 873/2023 In this specific performance of contract suit, defendants 1-4 successfully sought to set aside a "no cross" order dated 05.03.2026. The court allowed their application because their advocate was unavailable due to medical reasons and they were denied the opportunity to conduct cross-examination. The court held that both parties must have equal opportunity to present their case and set aside the "no cross" order, allowing the defendants to proceed with cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case