Sandeep Shantaram Watpade vs Special Recovery Officer Maruti Rural Non Agricultural Coperative Credit Society Limited Advocate - Hadole Pravin B. — 57/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 23-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHNS130003072024

e-Filing Number

15-02-2024

Filing Number

76/2024

Filing Date

16-Feb-2024

Registration No

57/2024

Registration Date

16-Feb-2024

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Pimpalgaon Baswant

Judge

3-2Nd Joint CIVIL Judge Jd And JMFC Pimpalgaon

Last updated 29-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 9

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sandeep Shantaram Watpade

    Adv. Ranjeet Chavan

  2. 2.Sagar Shantaram Watpadade

    Adv. Ranjeet Chavan

  3. 3.Sunanda Shantaram Watpade

    Adv. Ranjeet Chavan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Special Recovery Officer Maruti Rural Non Agricultural Coperative Credit Society Limited Advocate - Hadole Pravin B.

  2. 2.Shantaram Yashwant Vatpade

Case History

  1. 23-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    2Nd Joint CIVIL Judge Jd And JMFC Pimpalgaon

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    2Nd Joint CIVIL Judge Jd And JMFC Pimpalgaon

  4. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    2Nd Joint CIVIL Judge Jd And JMFC Pimpalgaon

  5. 23-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    2Nd Joint CIVIL Judge Jd And JMFC Pimpalgaon

  6. 26-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    2Nd Joint CIVIL Judge Jd And JMFC Pimpalgaon

  7. 16-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    2Nd Joint CIVIL Judge Jd And JMFC Pimpalgaon

  8. 07-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  9. 19-Jun-2025

    Issues

    Joint CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  10. 28-Mar-2025

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  11. 18-Feb-2025

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  12. 04-Dec-2024

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  13. 14-Oct-2024

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  14. 01-Aug-2024

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  15. 22-Jul-2024

    Order on T.I.View PDF

    Summary The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction to restrain the auction of ancestral agricultural property. The judge found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, noting contradictions in their claims (plaintiff no.2 denied obtaining the Rs. 8,00,000 loan despite documentary evidence showing he had applied for it) and suspecting collusion between plaintiffs and defendant no.2. The court ruled that plaintiffs did not come with "clean hands" and were therefore ineligible for equitable relief; additionally, balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not favor them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  16. 22-Jul-2024

    Issues

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  17. 16-Jul-2024

    Order on Exh

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  18. 18-Jun-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  19. 11-Jun-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  20. 06-May-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  21. 20-Apr-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  22. 06-Apr-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  23. 16-Mar-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge J.D. And JMFC

  24. 22-Feb-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 16-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 57/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction to restrain the auction of ancestral agricultural property. The judge found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, noting contradictions in their claims (plaintiff no.2 denied obtaining the Rs. 8,00,000 loan despite documentary evidence showing he had applied for it) and suspecting collusion between plaintiffs and defendant no.2. The court ruled that plaintiffs did not come with "clean hands" and were therefore ineligible for equitable relief; additionally, balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not favor them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case