Omprakash Ratanlal Sharam vs Subham Rahul Ingale — 1700080/2013
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 6. Status: Order on Exh. Next hearing: 04th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHAK070009002013
Next Hearing
04th April 2026
Filing Number
1700080/2013
Filing Date
29-11-2013
Registration No
1700080/2013
Registration Date
29-11-2013
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Balapur
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. Balapur.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Omprakash Ratanlal Sharam
Adv. Barde D. J.
Respondent(s)
Subham Rahul Ingale
Rahul Ramchandra Ingale
Adv. Suroshe P. N.
Panchafula Rahul Ingle
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. Balapur.
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 06-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 12-02-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 09-02-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 15-01-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the defendants' application to set aside the ex-parte orders and file a written statement in this specific performance and mandatory injunction suit. The judge found that the defendants' 11-year delay in appearing before the court—citing reasons such as death of their sons, mental agony, economic crises, and illness—did not constitute "sufficient cause" under CPC Order VIII Rule 1 and the Limitation Act. The court noted that despite multiple opportunities and court notices since 2014, the defendants failed to appear and only sought relief while the case was pending final arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the defendants' application to set aside the ex-parte orders and file a written statement in this specific performance and mandatory injunction suit. The judge found that the defendants' 11-year delay in appearing before the court—citing reasons such as death of their sons, mental agony, economic crises, and illness—did not constitute "sufficient cause" under CPC Order VIII Rule 1 and the Limitation Act. The court noted that despite multiple opportunities and court notices since 2014, the defendants failed to appear and only sought relief while the case was pending final arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts