Vishwambhar Maruti Usnale vs Mahadu Maruti Usnale and oth. 8 Advocate - Salunke Govind R — 360/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1. Status: Awaiting Summons. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA110003692018
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
361/2018
Filing Date
29-08-2018
Registration No
360/2018
Registration Date
29-08-2018
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Nilanga
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vishwambhar Maruti Usnale
Adv. Narhare Praveen L
Respondent(s)
Mahadu Maruti Usnale and oth. 8 Advocate - Salunke Govind R
Nagarbai alias Yashoda Shahajirao Rurale
Kalawati alias Fulabai Shrimant Jadhav
Sukumar Vithoba Takekar(Legal Heir)
Karim Gobisab Shaikh(Legal Heir)
Tukaram Sambhaji Kadam
Namdev Sambhaji Kadam
Sopan Sambhaji Kadam
Malikarjun Namdev Kadam
2/4 Suman W/o Nagnath Birajdar
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 13-03-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 06-02-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 09-01-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 28-11-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
Interim Orders
Case Summary - RCS No. 360/2018 The plaintiff's application to vacate a prior court order was rejected on 11/02/2025. The court found that although the plaintiff's amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 was allowed on 10/10/2023, the plaintiff failed to comply with the prescribed timeline to implement the amendment, resulting in rejection of the earlier application. The court declined to allow the plaintiff a fresh opportunity to amend, holding it would not be just and proper given the non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary - RCS No. 360/2018 The plaintiff's application to vacate a prior court order was rejected on 11/02/2025. The court found that although the plaintiff's amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 was allowed on 10/10/2023, the plaintiff failed to comply with the prescribed timeline to implement the amendment, resulting in rejection of the earlier application. The court declined to allow the plaintiff a fresh opportunity to amend, holding it would not be just and proper given the non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts