Gopal Sevaji Rathod vs Devanand Dawalu Khadse Advocate - Meshram N.B. — 1900005/2013
Status: Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHYA150000322013
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
1900005/2013
Filing Date
04-01-2013
Registration No
1900005/2013
Registration Date
04-01-2013
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division Ner
Judge
1-Civil Judge, Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C., Ner
Petitioner(s)
Gopal Sevaji Rathod
Adv. Malnas Kamruddin
Respondent(s)
Devanand Dawalu Khadse Advocate - Meshram N.B.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge, Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C., Ner
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 09-04-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 12-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 18-02-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 05-02-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The defendant's review application to recall Plaintiff Witness No. 1 (Gopal Sewaji Rathod) for further cross-examination regarding an agreement to sale was rejected. The court held that the defendant had adequate opportunity to cross-examine both witnesses about the agreement, and the plaintiff—as master of the case—had discretion in presenting evidence through any witness. Since no new facts emerged and the prior order rejecting the recall application contained valid reasoning, the review application was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The defendant's review application to recall Plaintiff Witness No. 1 (Gopal Sewaji Rathod) for further cross-examination regarding an agreement to sale was rejected. The court held that the defendant had adequate opportunity to cross-examine both witnesses about the agreement, and the plaintiff—as master of the case—had discretion in presenting evidence through any witness. Since no new facts emerged and the prior order rejecting the recall application contained valid reasoning, the review application was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts