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

Argument on Exh.____Unready

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

Specific Relief Act Section 34,39

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

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

22-09-2025
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Patan All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case