Laldas Pannalal Shah vs Municipal Corporation Aurangabad. Advocate - Wasadikar J.K. — 1400065/2010
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAU130000052006
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
Filing Number
1400065/2010
Filing Date
14-07-2006
Registration No
1400065/2010
Registration Date
14-07-2010
Court
Corporation Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE S.D., CORPORATION COURT, AURANGABAD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Laldas Pannalal Shah
Adv. Sirsikar G.S.
Jayantilal Bhanji Patel
Adv. Deshpande R.D.
Samji Bhanji Patel
Adv. Deshpande R.D.
Himmatlal Narayan Patel
Adv. Deshpande R.D.
Devendrasingh Moolsingh Jaggi
Adv. Deshpande R.D.
Harvindarsingh Raghubirsingh Nirh
Adv. Deshpande R.D.
Mongiben Danabhai Patel
Adv. Deshpande R.D.
Respondent(s)
Municipal Corporation Aurangabad. Advocate - Wasadikar J.K.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE S.D., CORPORATION COURT, AURANGABAD
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 08-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 04-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 25-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S./1400065/2010 - Laldas Pannalal Shah v. Municipal Corporation Aurangabad The plaintiffs' application was allowed on 14.02.2025. The court permitted the continuation of an evidence affidavit filed by Purushottam (legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.7, Moongiben) even though it was filed before his formal substitution as a party. The court held that under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC 1908, Purushottam's status as a witness was not materially affected by the procedural irregularity, and the evidence could proceed without causing prejudice to the defendant corporation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S./1400065/2010 - Laldas Pannalal Shah v. Municipal Corporation Aurangabad The plaintiffs' application was allowed on 14.02.2025. The court permitted the continuation of an evidence affidavit filed by Purushottam (legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.7, Moongiben) even though it was filed before his formal substitution as a party. The court held that under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC 1908, Purushottam's status as a witness was not materially affected by the procedural irregularity, and the evidence could proceed without causing prejudice to the defendant corporation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts