Laxmibai Raju Kotpalliwar vs Sunil Maroti Chavhan Advocate - S.M.Kushwaha — 50/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Status: Compliance. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHNG080070462015
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
90/2018
Filing Date
16-05-2018
Registration No
50/2018
Registration Date
16-05-2018
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Kamptee
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC Kamptee
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Laxmibai Raju Kotpalliwar
Adv. R.I. Agrawal
Respondent(s)
Sunil Maroti Chavhan Advocate - S.M.Kushwaha
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. JMFC Kamptee
Compliance
Compliance
Hearing
Reply/Say
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Compliance | |
| 10-03-2026 | Compliance | |
| 17-02-2026 | Hearing | |
| 03-02-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 16-12-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: In RCS No. 50/2018 (Laxmibai v. Sunil), the court allowed the defendant's application to amend the written statement to include facts about the suit property falling down and the plaintiff vacating the shop, which were already admitted by the plaintiff during cross-examination. The court found no prejudice to the plaintiff since these facts were already established through her own admissions and found the amendment necessary for proper adjudication of the case. The defendant was permitted to file the amended written statement on payment of Rs. 500 cost to the plaintiff as compensation for the delay in filing the amendment application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: In RCS No. 50/2018 (Laxmibai v. Sunil), the court allowed the defendant's application to amend the written statement to include facts about the suit property falling down and the plaintiff vacating the shop, which were already admitted by the plaintiff during cross-examination. The court found no prejudice to the plaintiff since these facts were already established through her own admissions and found the amendment necessary for proper adjudication of the case. The defendant was permitted to file the amended written statement on payment of Rs. 500 cost to the plaintiff as compensation for the delay in filing the amendment application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts