Rukmini Vaman Jahdav vs Laxman Govind Mane Advocate - Godse P.S. — 1700071/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 54. Status: Notice_Unready. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHST170005472015
Next Hearing
24th April 2026
Filing Number
1700562/2015
Filing Date
14-08-2015
Registration No
1700071/2015
Registration Date
04-09-2015
Court
District and Session Court, Vaduj
Judge
3-Extra Joint District Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Vaduj
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rukmini Vaman Jahdav
Adv. Karande P.D.
Balubai alias Panchganga Pandurang Katkar
Respondent(s)
Laxman Govind Mane Advocate - Godse P.S.
Aavinda Bajirao Mane
Vithal bajirao Mane
Bhamabai Hindurao Mohite
surekha subhash katkar
Baban Namdeo Katkar
Phulabai Ramchandra Mohite
Bai Vasant katkar
Prabhavati ramchandra mane
daulatrao ramchandra mane
Sakhubai Ramchandra Phadatare
Latita shankar Deshmukh
Sangita Ashok Shinde
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Extra Joint District Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Vaduj
Notice_Unready
Notice_Unready
Notice_Unready
Notice_Unready
Notice_Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Notice_Unready |
| 16-01-2026 | Notice_Unready |
| 28-11-2025 | Notice_Unready |
| 26-09-2025 | Notice_Unready |
| 08-08-2025 | Notice_Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The application for stay of execution of the decree in Civil Appeal No.71/2015 is rejected. The court found that the appellants were not parties to the original suit (R.C.S.No.101/2006) as their brother Vitthal represented them as joint family manager, making the earlier decree binding on them. The appellants must file a separate suit against their brother Vitthal to claim their share, rather than challenging the execution of the partition decree. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The application for stay of execution of the decree in Civil Appeal No.71/2015 is rejected. The court found that the appellants were not parties to the original suit (R.C.S.No.101/2006) as their brother Vitthal represented them as joint family manager, making the earlier decree binding on them. The appellants must file a separate suit against their brother Vitthal to claim their share, rather than challenging the execution of the partition decree. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts