Kanchan Rajaram Powar vs Ramchandra Shripati Pawar Advocate - K. C. Shirguppe — 66/2018
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO180001972018
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
120/2018
Filing Date
12-04-2018
Registration No
66/2018
Registration Date
12-04-2018
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Kurundwad
Judge
7-Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kanchan Rajaram Powar
Adv. J. J. Pomaje
Respondent(s)
Ramchandra Shripati Pawar Advocate - K. C. Shirguppe
Rajaram Annu Khadake
Ravindra Annu Khadake
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 19-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 15-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 10-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Civil Suit No. 66/2018 Outcome: Application allowed. Defendant No. 1's written statement was accepted on record despite being filed 1 year 42 days late, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,300 to the plaintiff. Key Points: The court condoned the delay in filing the written statement, finding that while the defendant was negligent, he deserved an opportunity to present his defense. The court imposed costs as compensation to the plaintiff for the delay and to ensure the suit could be decided on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Civil Suit No. 66/2018 Outcome: Application allowed. Defendant No. 1's written statement was accepted on record despite being filed 1 year 42 days late, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,300 to the plaintiff. Key Points: The court condoned the delay in filing the written statement, finding that while the defendant was negligent, he deserved an opportunity to present his defense. The court imposed costs as compensation to the plaintiff for the delay and to ensure the suit could be decided on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts