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
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
e-Filing Number
09-02-2026
Filing Number
31/2026
Filing Date
10-02-2026
Registration No
32/2026
Registration Date
10-02-2026
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Malkapur Shauwadi
Judge
1-Civil Judge Junior Division Malkapur-Shahuwadi.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Krishna Akaram Patil
Adv. satvshil D lad
Dagdu Balku Patil
Adv. satvshil D lad
Shivaji Vitthal Patil
Adv. satvshil D lad
Sangita Baburao Patil
Adv. satvshil D lad
Respondent(s)
Avinash Kashiling Vagre Advocate - V. V. Bambawadekar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Junior Division Malkapur-Shahuwadi.
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 04-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 27-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 06-04-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 16-03-2026 | W.S. and Say |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts