Muktaji Rajaram Lade vs Ramnath bhagwat Lade Advocate - Jaybhaye V.S. — 518/2017
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 22. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHBI160008452017
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
607/2017
Filing Date
16-06-2017
Registration No
518/2017
Registration Date
17-06-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Shirur
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC SHIRUR-K
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Muktaji Rajaram Lade
Adv. Khedkar K.S.
rajaram maruti lade
chandrabhagabai rajaram lade
Respondent(s)
Ramnath bhagwat Lade Advocate - Jaybhaye V.S.
babasaheb bhagwat lade
rangnath bhagwat lade
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC SHIRUR-K
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's applications (Exh. 33 and 35) to bring the legal representative of deceased plaintiff no. 2 on record and to condone the delay in doing so. The court found that plaintiff no. 1 had caused an unreasonable delay of approximately 5 years—despite being present in court proceedings since December 2018 when the death was first informed—and that the reasons cited (being out of station and COVID-19 pandemic) were insufficient and not bona fide to justify condonation of delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's applications (Exh. 33 and 35) to bring the legal representative of deceased plaintiff no. 2 on record and to condone the delay in doing so. The court found that plaintiff no. 1 had caused an unreasonable delay of approximately 5 years—despite being present in court proceedings since December 2018 when the death was first informed—and that the reasons cited (being out of station and COVID-19 pandemic) were insufficient and not bona fide to justify condonation of delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts