Sukhdev Shrirang Katkar etc 01 vs Maruti Shrirang Katkar etc 06 — 128/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Partition. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED / REJECTED OTHERWISE on 06th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST120002462025
e-Filing Number
13-02-2025
Filing Number
142/2025
Filing Date
24-Feb-2025
Registration No
128/2025
Registration Date
24-Feb-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Mhaswad
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Mhaswad
Decision Date
06-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED / REJECTED OTHERWISE
Last updated 26-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sukhdev Shrirang Katkar etc 01
Adv. Adv B D Khandekar
-
2.Sambhaji Jagannath Katkar
Adv. Adv B D Khandekar
Respondent(s)
-
1.Maruti Shrirang Katkar etc 06
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The Civil Judge, Mhaswad dismissed the suit in default for want of steps, finding that the plaintiffs and their advocate were repeatedly absent on all fixed dates since 2025 and failed to take necessary steps to proceed with the case. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had lost interest in the matter and were attempting to unnecessarily prolong the litigation, making it purposeless to keep it pending. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Mar-2026
Disposed
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Mhaswad
-
23-Feb-2026
Dismissal Order
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Mhaswad
-
13-Dec-2025
Lok-Nyayalaya
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Mhaswad
-
15-Nov-2025
Lok-Nyayalaya
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Mhaswad
-
13-Sep-2025
Lok-Nyayalaya
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Mhaswad
-
14-Jul-2025
Lok-Nyayalaya
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Mhaswad
-
10-May-2025
Lok-Nyayalaya
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Mhaswad
-
25-Mar-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Feb-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 128/2025
The Civil Judge, Mhaswad dismissed the suit in default for want of steps, finding that the plaintiffs and their advocate were repeatedly absent on all fixed dates since 2025 and failed to take necessary steps to proceed with the case. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had lost interest in the matter and were attempting to unnecessarily prolong the litigation, making it purposeless to keep it pending. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts