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
e-Filing Number
04-07-2024
Filing Number
359/2024
Filing Date
09-Jul-2024
Registration No
264/2024
Registration Date
11-Jul-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Patan
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
Last updated 26-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Anandrao Hindurao Mane
Adv. CHANDRAKANT BHISE
Respondent(s)
-
1.Arun Baban Pawar Advocate - Jagadale A. U.
-
2.Kashinath Eknath Pawar 3.
-
3.Mangesh Shankar Pawar
-
4.Dinkar Eknath Pawar
-
5.Hindurao Keshav Mane
-
6.Somnath Hindurao Mane
Case History
-
17-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
06-Feb-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
05-Jan-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
15-Dec-2025
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
24-Nov-2025
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
16-Oct-2025
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
22-Sep-2025
Order on ExhibitView PDF
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.
-
22-Sep-2025
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
11-Aug-2025
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
07-Jul-2025
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
09-Jun-2025
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
28-Apr-2025
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
28-Mar-2025
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
25-Feb-2025
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
28-Jan-2025
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
04-Jan-2025
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
09-Dec-2024
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
26-Nov-2024
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
24-Oct-2024
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
20-Sep-2024
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
23-Aug-2024
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
-
18-Jul-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Jul-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 264/2024
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.
Explore other courts