Dayal Arjundas Dodeja vs Vishal Vinayak Bhilare Advocate - Chorage — 6/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST100004962016
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
Filing Number
170/2016
Filing Date
23-12-2016
Registration No
6/2017
Registration Date
18-02-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Mahabaleshwar
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Mahabaleshwar
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dayal Arjundas Dodeja
Adv. Sanas U.H
Respondent(s)
Vishal Vinayak Bhilare Advocate - Chorage
Ashok Maruti Bhilare
Balasaheb Maruti Bhilare
Adv. Chorage S.S.
Dharmendra Madhuradas Kotak
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Mahabaleshwar
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 31-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 19-12-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 21-11-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 17-10-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The plaintiff's application to stay proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected. The court found that while both suits involve the same agricultural property, the parties and causes of action are distinct—the earlier suit (R.C.S. No. 401/2010) is a partition suit between family members, whereas the present suit (R.C.S. No. 6/2017) is by a third-party purchaser seeking injunction based on possession from a registered sale deed. The court held that incidental bearing from the partition suit's decision is insufficient to invoke Section 10's bar. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The plaintiff's application to stay proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected. The court found that while both suits involve the same agricultural property, the parties and causes of action are distinct—the earlier suit (R.C.S. No. 401/2010) is a partition suit between family members, whereas the present suit (R.C.S. No. 6/2017) is by a third-party purchaser seeking injunction based on possession from a registered sale deed. The court held that incidental bearing from the partition suit's decision is insufficient to invoke Section 10's bar. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts