Manas Deepak Aadake vs Deepak Baburao Aadake Advocate - S. P. Wagvekar — 145/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,36. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO190005632025
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
e-Filing Number
13-08-2025
Filing Number
194/2025
Filing Date
13-08-2025
Registration No
145/2025
Registration Date
13-08-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari
Judge
5-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Manas Deepak Aadake
Adv. S. T. Desai
Respondent(s)
Deepak Baburao Aadake Advocate - S. P. Wagvekar
Rekha Deepak Adke
Manshi Sanket Keripale
The Azra Urban Co OP BANK LT sick
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 06-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 16-12-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 04-12-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 15-11-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected Defendant No. 9's (a Multi-State Co-operative Society) application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of statutory bars under the SARFAESI Act and MSCS Act. The court held that since the suit's primary relief is partition of ancestral property—a civil remedy beyond the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal—the civil court retains jurisdiction and the suit is maintainable. The court also found that the mandatory notice requirement under Section 115 of the MSCS Act applies only to suits directly touching the society's business, which this partition suit does not. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected Defendant No. 9's (a Multi-State Co-operative Society) application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of statutory bars under the SARFAESI Act and MSCS Act. The court held that since the suit's primary relief is partition of ancestral property—a civil remedy beyond the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal—the civil court retains jurisdiction and the suit is maintainable. The court also found that the mandatory notice requirement under Section 115 of the MSCS Act applies only to suits directly touching the society's business, which this partition suit does not. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts