Rahul Anil Jirange vs Dilip Shamrao Jirange and ors. Advocate - Kadam Ravindra Dattatray — 500042/2014
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHST050003232014
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
500320/2014
Filing Date
01-09-2014
Registration No
500042/2014
Registration Date
16-09-2014
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Karad
Judge
3-2nd Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rahul Anil Jirange
Adv. Bahulekar P. M.
Lata Anil Jirge
Respondent(s)
Dilip Shamrao Jirange and ors. Advocate - Kadam Ravindra Dattatray
Vijay Shamrao Jirge
Adv. Bahulekar P. M.
Vaishali Sudam Kairmode
Avantika Anil Jirge
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karad
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Steps_Unready
Steps_Unready
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 20-02-2026 | Steps_Unready |
| 23-01-2026 | Steps_Unready |
| 06-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 23-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Special Civil Suit No. 42/2014, the 2nd Joint Civil Judge of Karad allowed the plaintiffs' application to produce a document, despite the defendants' objection. The court held that production of documents and proof of documents are distinct matters, and mere production would not prejudice the defendants, who retain the right to cross-examine the plaintiffs on the documents during evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Special Civil Suit No. 42/2014, the 2nd Joint Civil Judge of Karad allowed the plaintiffs' application to produce a document, despite the defendants' objection. The court held that production of documents and proof of documents are distinct matters, and mere production would not prejudice the defendants, who retain the right to cross-examine the plaintiffs on the documents during evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts