Krishna Akaram Patil vs Avinash Kashiling Vagre Advocate - V. V. Bambawadekar — 32/2026
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO160000972026
e-Filing Number
09-02-2026
Filing Number
31/2026
Filing Date
10-Feb-2026
Registration No
32/2026
Registration Date
10-Feb-2026
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Malkapur Shauwadi
Judge
1-Civil Judge Junior Division Malkapur-Shahuwadi.
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Krishna Akaram Patil
Adv. satvshil D lad
-
2.Dagdu Balku Patil
Adv. satvshil D lad
-
3.Shivaji Vitthal Patil
Adv. satvshil D lad
-
4.Sangita Baburao Patil
Adv. satvshil D lad
Respondent(s)
-
1.Avinash Kashiling Vagre Advocate - V. V. Bambawadekar
Case History
-
16-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-May-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case 32/2026 Summary The court allowed defendant No. 1's application for condonation of delay in filing a written statement (W.S.), despite finding the 40-day delay was not satisfactorily explained. The court set aside the "no W.S." order and condoned the delay, prioritizing natural justice and the defendant's right to defend the case. However, the defendant was ordered to pay Rs. 500 as cost to the plaintiffs by the next date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-May-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Junior Division Malkapur-Shahuwadi.
-
04-May-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Junior Division Malkapur-Shahuwadi.
-
27-Apr-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Junior Division Malkapur-Shahuwadi.
-
06-Apr-2026
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Junior Division Malkapur-Shahuwadi.
-
16-Mar-2026
W.S. and Say
Civil Judge Junior Division Malkapur-Shahuwadi.
-
13-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 32/2026
Case 32/2026 Summary The court allowed defendant No. 1's application for condonation of delay in filing a written statement (W.S.), despite finding the 40-day delay was not satisfactorily explained. The court set aside the "no W.S." order and condoned the delay, prioritizing natural justice and the defendant's right to defend the case. However, the defendant was ordered to pay Rs. 500 as cost to the plaintiffs by the next date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts