Anandrao Hindurao Mane vs Arun Baban Pawar Advocate - Jagadale A. U. — 264/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,39. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST130007512024
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
e-Filing Number
04-07-2024
Filing Number
359/2024
Filing Date
09-07-2024
Registration No
264/2024
Registration Date
11-07-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Patan
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anandrao Hindurao Mane
Adv. CHANDRAKANT BHISE
Respondent(s)
Arun Baban Pawar Advocate - Jagadale A. U.
Kashinath Eknath Pawar 3.
Mangesh Shankar Pawar
Dinkar Eknath Pawar
Hindurao Keshav Mane
Somnath Hindurao Mane
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 06-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 05-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 15-12-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 24-11-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary The court rejected the defendants' application to dismiss the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The plaintiff's suit challenging a 2011 sale deed as void and fraudulent is not time-barred because he claims to have discovered the fraud only in 2023, making the suit within the 3-year limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The court held that questions of fraud discovery and whether the deed is void ab initio (due to legal prohibition on transfer under Maharashtra tenancy law) are triable issues of fact requiring full evidence at trial, not dismissible at the preliminary stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the defendants' application to dismiss the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The plaintiff's suit challenging a 2011 sale deed as void and fraudulent is not time-barred because he claims to have discovered the fraud only in 2023, making the suit within the 3-year limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The court held that questions of fraud discovery and whether the deed is void ab initio (due to legal prohibition on transfer under Maharashtra tenancy law) are triable issues of fact requiring full evidence at trial, not dismissible at the preliminary stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts