geeta sanjaykumar kadam vs sanjaykumar shivraj kadam — 772/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA060022542024
Next Hearing
25th June 2026
e-Filing Number
01-09-2024
Filing Number
1291/2024
Filing Date
10-09-2024
Registration No
772/2024
Registration Date
10-09-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Ahmedpur
Judge
2-2nd Jt. CJJD And JMFC Ahmedpur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
geeta sanjaykumar kadam
Adv. Uppe Viresh M_LAPA
anushka sanjaykumar kadam ug of her real mother
Adv. Uppe Viresh M_LAPA55
Respondent(s)
sanjaykumar shivraj kadam
hanmant shivraj kadam
ankita hanmant kadam
Hearing History
Judge: 2-2nd Jt. CJJD And JMFC Ahmedpur
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 19-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary - R.C.S. No. 772/2024 The court allowed the defendants' application to set aside the "No Written Statement" order dated 30.01.2025 and accept their written statement on record. Although the defendants failed to file their written statement within the prescribed 90-day period under CPC Order VIII Rule 1 and filed the application with significant delay on 07.03.2025, the court found their affidavit-supported explanation credible. Given that the suit (seeking declaration that an adoption deed is null and void and that plaintiff No.2 is the biological daughter of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1) was at an initial stage, the court deemed it just to allow the defendants an opportunity to present their defense. However, to penalize the delay, the defendants were ordered to pay Rs.100 each as cost to the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary - R.C.S. No. 772/2024 The court allowed the defendants' application to set aside the "No Written Statement" order dated 30.01.2025 and accept their written statement on record. Although the defendants failed to file their written statement within the prescribed 90-day period under CPC Order VIII Rule 1 and filed the application with significant delay on 07.03.2025, the court found their affidavit-supported explanation credible. Given that the suit (seeking declaration that an adoption deed is null and void and that plaintiff No.2 is the biological daughter of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1) was at an initial stage, the court deemed it just to allow the defendants an opportunity to present their defense. However, to penalize the delay, the defendants were ordered to pay Rs.100 each as cost to the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts