Bhagwan Ganpat Shinde vs Krushi Utpann Bajar Samiti Manchar tarfe Chairman Nilesh Vilas Thorat Advocate - Arvikar Sanjay Dattatray — 106/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Compliance. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.

Compliance Next hearing 16-Apr-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHPU240008022025

e-Filing Number

12-06-2025

Filing Number

134/2025

Filing Date

12-Jun-2025

Registration No

106/2025

Registration Date

12-Jun-2025

Court

Civil Court,Ghodegaon

Judge

2-2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

Last updated 06-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34,38

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Bhagwan Ganpat Shinde

    Adv. GADEKAR SHRUNGAR PANDARINATH

  2. 2.Gautam Ganpat Shinde

    Adv. GADEKAR SHRUNGAR PANDARINATH

  3. 3.Shobha Ganpat Shinde

    Adv. NIGHOT NAVANATH RAJARAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Krushi Utpann Bajar Samiti Manchar tarfe Chairman Nilesh Vilas Thorat Advocate - Arvikar Sanjay Dattatray

  2. 2.Manjulabai Ganpat Shinde

  3. 3.Sitabai Maruti Shinde

  4. 4.Vanita Suresh Dethe

  5. 5.Sandip Maruti Shinde

  6. 6.Sonal Vilas Waghmare

  7. 7.Minal Kamesh Thorat

  8. 8.Vaishali Shankar Shinde

  9. 9.Vikas Shankar Shinde

  10. 10.Subhadra Shankar Shinde

  11. 11.Shankar Sambhaji Shinde

Case History

  1. 16-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    SUMMARY: The court allowed Defendants 1 and 2's application to amend their written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, finding that typographical errors caused them to inadvertently admit facts instead of denying them. The court determined this was a genuine typographical error necessary for deciding the suit on merit and would not prejudice the plaintiffs. Defendants must complete the amendment within 14 days and pay Rs. 100 as costs to the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Compliance

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  4. 03-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  5. 01-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  6. 21-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  7. 10-Oct-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  8. 10-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  9. 15-Sep-2025

    W.S. and Say

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  10. 18-Aug-2025

    Order on T.I.View PDF

  11. 18-Aug-2025

    W.S. and Say

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  12. 12-Aug-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  13. 12-Aug-2025

    Order

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  14. 11-Aug-2025

    Order

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  15. 24-Jul-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  16. 24-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  17. 07-Jul-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  18. 07-Jul-2025

    W.S. and Say

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  19. 30-Jun-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  20. 30-Jun-2025

    W.S. and Say

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  21. 13-Jun-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  22. 13-Jun-2025

    Report

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  23. 12-Jun-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  24. 12-Jun-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  25. 12-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 12-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 106/2025

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The court allowed Defendants 1 and 2's application to amend their written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, finding that typographical errors caused them to inadvertently admit facts instead of denying them. The court determined this was a genuine typographical error necessary for deciding the suit on merit and would not prejudice the plaintiffs. Defendants must complete the amendment within 14 days and pay Rs. 100 as costs to the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case