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

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

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

Specific Relief Act Section 34,36

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

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

16-12-2025
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case