Sudhakar Ravan Jadhav vs Kamlakar Digambarrao Jadhav And Another — 314/2025

Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 20-Jun-2026 this date has passed

M.A.C.P. - Motor Accident Claim Petition

CNR: MHLA010054672025

e-Filing Number

10-12-2025

Filing Number

4040/2025

Filing Date

10-Dec-2025

Registration No

314/2025

Registration Date

11-Dec-2025

Court

District and Sessions Court , Latur

Judge

3-District Judge 2nd Latur

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sudhakar Ravan Jadhav

    Adv. Patel Nazir G

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Kamlakar Digambarrao Jadhav And Another

  2. 2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager

Case History

  1. 20-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Judge 2nd Latur

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary - MACP No. 314/2025 The court allowed Respondent No. 2's application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 16.02.2026 passed against them. Finding the delay in appearance was unintentional and supported by affidavit, and considering the hearing had not commenced, the court granted Respondent No. 2 an opportunity to contest the petition on merits. Respondent No. 2 was ordered to pay Rs. 500 costs to the claimant by the next date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Judge 2nd Latur

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    IssuesView PDF

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Judge 2nd Latur

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Issues

    District Judge 2nd Latur

  8. 11-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 10-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 314/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary - MACP No. 314/2025 The court allowed Respondent No. 2's application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 16.02.2026 passed against them. Finding the delay in appearance was unintentional and supported by affidavit, and considering the hearing had not commenced, the court granted Respondent No. 2 an opportunity to contest the petition on merits. Respondent No. 2 was ordered to pay Rs. 500 costs to the claimant by the next date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case