Jannat Kasam Walange vs Liyakat Najir Mulani Advocate - Jadhav S. B. — 1600086/2014
Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Status: Order on Exh. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST100002772014
Next Hearing
07th April 2026
Filing Number
1600130/2014
Filing Date
12-11-2014
Registration No
1600086/2014
Registration Date
13-11-2014
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Mahabaleshwar
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Mahabaleshwar
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jannat Kasam Walange
Adv. Bhosale R.H
Respondent(s)
Liyakat Najir Mulani Advocate - Jadhav S. B.
Nurmahamad Najir Mulali
Adv. Jadhav S. B.
Nashir Najir Mulani
Adv. Jadhav S. B.
Sayyed Ali Mulani
Adv. Chorage S.S.
Bebi Liyakat Mulani
Adv. Jadhav S. B.
Roshan Babu Nalband
Adv. Jadhav S. B.
Kondan Chand Warunkar
Adv. Jadhav S. B.
Chandbi Usman Sharwan
Adv. Jadhav S. B.
Samir Rahiman Badane
Siraj Rahiman Badane
Adv. Chorage S.S.
Salima Iqbal Panalkar
Jarina Munna Mankar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Mahabaleshwar
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 31-01-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 20-12-2025 | Order on Exh |
| 29-11-2025 | Order on Exh |
| 11-11-2025 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint in a partition suit (R.C.S.No.86/2014). The plaintiff sought to add allegations that a 2002 sale-deed was bogus and illegal, but the court found she failed to show due diligence by proposing the amendment only after trial commencement and issues were settled on 22/03/2017, despite having legal assistance when an interim injunction application was rejected in 2015. The court held the proposed amendment was unnecessary to resolve the real dispute and would not serve any purpose without proper relief sought regarding the registered document. Costs imposed in cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint in a partition suit (R.C.S.No.86/2014). The plaintiff sought to add allegations that a 2002 sale-deed was bogus and illegal, but the court found she failed to show due diligence by proposing the amendment only after trial commencement and issues were settled on 22/03/2017, despite having legal assistance when an interim injunction application was rejected in 2015. The court held the proposed amendment was unnecessary to resolve the real dispute and would not serve any purpose without proper relief sought regarding the registered document. Costs imposed in 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