Sou. Shalan Dinkar Patil vs Kiran Hari Patil Advocate - पी. ए. महाजन — 183/2022

Case under Revenue Recovery Act. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 13th July 2026.

Issues Next hearing 13-Jul-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO170012562022

Filing Number

304/2022

Filing Date

22-Dec-2022

Registration No

183/2022

Registration Date

22-Dec-2022

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Panhala

Judge

3-Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Revenue Recovery Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sou. Shalan Dinkar Patil

    Adv. Avinash B Patil

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Kiran Hari Patil Advocate - पी. ए. महाजन

Case History

  1. 13-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 27-Apr-2026

    Issues

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Issues

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  4. 02-Feb-2026

    Issues

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  5. 08-Dec-2025

    Issues

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  6. 03-Nov-2025

    Issues

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  7. 28-Aug-2025

    Issues

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  8. 17-Jul-2025

    Issues

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  9. 16-Jun-2025

    Issues

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  10. 28-Apr-2025

    Issues

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  11. 24-Mar-2025

    Issues

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  12. 10-Feb-2025

    Issues

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  13. 06-Jan-2025

    Issues

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  14. 18-Nov-2024

    Written Statement

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  15. 23-Sep-2024

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  16. 19-Aug-2024

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  17. 29-Jul-2024

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  18. 24-Jun-2024

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case 183/2022 Summary: The defendant's application to set aside the "No Written Statement" order was allowed. The court found the defendant's delay in filing the written statement was justified due to unavailability of old documents from the land acquisition department and accepted the affidavit-based explanation. The defendant's written statement was taken on record, the "No Written Statement" order was set aside, and the defendant was ordered to pay ₹500 as costs to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  19. 24-Jun-2024

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  20. 15-Apr-2024

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  21. 04-Mar-2024

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  22. 08-Jan-2024

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  23. 20-Nov-2023

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  24. 09-Oct-2023

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  25. 04-Sep-2023

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  26. 20-Jul-2023

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  27. 12-Jun-2023

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  28. 10-Apr-2023

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  29. 20-Feb-2023

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  30. 30-Jan-2023

    Written Statement

    Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala

  31. 22-Dec-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 22-Dec-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 183/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case 183/2022 Summary: The defendant's application to set aside the "No Written Statement" order was allowed. The court found the defendant's delay in filing the written statement was justified due to unavailability of old documents from the land acquisition department and accepted the affidavit-based explanation. The defendant's written statement was taken on record, the "No Written Statement" order was set aside, and the defendant was ordered to pay ₹500 as costs to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case