Ashwin Anand Shewale vs Mohammed Iqbal Usman Khatri — 375/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Disposed: Uncontested--JUDGMENT on 18th March 2026.
Civil Suit
CNR: MHCC040047252022
Filing Number
4908/2022
Filing Date
14-Jun-2021
Registration No
375/2022
Registration Date
16-Jul-2022
Court
Civil Court, Dindoshi
Judge
2-Ad hoc Judge City Civil Court And Addl. Sessions Judge
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--JUDGMENT
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ashwin Anand Shewale
Adv. Sindhu Shajee Edachali
Respondent(s)
-
1.Mohammed Iqbal Usman Khatri
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
Copy of Judgment
Case Summary: 375/2022 The City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai partially decreed plaintiff Ashwin Anand Shewale's summary suit against defendant Mohammed Iqbal Usman Khatri for recovery of flat purchase consideration. The plaintiff proved he paid Rs. 9,50,000 toward a 2BHK flat that was never constructed or handed over. Though the defendant issued multiple dishonored cheques totaling Rs. 12 lakhs as settlement, he failed to contest the ex-parte proceedings. The court awarded the plaintiff Rs. 12,00,000 (the verified cheque amount) plus 6% per annum interest from the suit filing date until realization, along with costs. The full claimed amount of Rs. 43,70,979 with 9% interest was partly rejected due to insufficient documentary proof of the higher quantum. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
Ad hoc Judge City Civil Court And Addl. Sessions Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Judgement
Ad hoc Judge City Civil Court And Addl. Sessions Judge
-
18-Feb-2026
Judgement
Ad hoc Judge City Civil Court And Addl. Sessions Judge
-
28-Jan-2026
Arguments
Ad hoc Judge City Civil Court And Addl. Sessions Judge
-
20-Nov-2025
Arguments
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
22-Sep-2025
Arguments
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
17-Jul-2025
Arguments
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
25-Apr-2025
Arguments
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
26-Feb-2025
Filing Affidavit Of Document
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
08-Jan-2025
Filing Affidavit Of Document
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
15-Oct-2024
Filing Affidavit Of Document
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
13-Aug-2024
Filing Affidavit Of Document
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
12-Jun-2024
Consideration
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
01-Mar-2024
Ex-Parte Evidence
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
05-Feb-2024
Ex-Parte Evidence
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
22-Jan-2024
Appearance
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
02-Dec-2023
Appearance
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
26-Sep-2023
Service
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
06-Sep-2023
Service
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
19-Jun-2023
Service
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
21-Feb-2023
Service
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
22-Nov-2022
Service
Judge City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
-
21-Sep-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
14-Jun-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 375/2022
Case Summary: 375/2022 The City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai partially decreed plaintiff Ashwin Anand Shewale's summary suit against defendant Mohammed Iqbal Usman Khatri for recovery of flat purchase consideration. The plaintiff proved he paid Rs. 9,50,000 toward a 2BHK flat that was never constructed or handed over. Though the defendant issued multiple dishonored cheques totaling Rs. 12 lakhs as settlement, he failed to contest the ex-parte proceedings. The court awarded the plaintiff Rs. 12,00,000 (the verified cheque amount) plus 6% per annum interest from the suit filing date until realization, along with costs. The full claimed amount of Rs. 43,70,979 with 9% interest was partly rejected due to insufficient documentary proof of the higher quantum. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts