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.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHPU240008022025
Next Hearing
16th April 2026
e-Filing Number
12-06-2025
Filing Number
134/2025
Filing Date
12-06-2025
Registration No
106/2025
Registration Date
12-06-2025
Court
Civil Court,Ghodegaon
Judge
2-2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C., Ghodegaon.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhagwan Ganpat Shinde
Adv. GADEKAR SHRUNGAR PANDARINATH
Gautam Ganpat Shinde
Adv. GADEKAR SHRUNGAR PANDARINATH
Shobha Ganpat Shinde
Adv. NIGHOT NAVANATH RAJARAM
Respondent(s)
Krushi Utpann Bajar Samiti Manchar tarfe Chairman Nilesh Vilas Thorat Advocate - Arvikar Sanjay Dattatray
Manjulabai Ganpat Shinde
Sitabai Maruti Shinde
Vanita Suresh Dethe
Sandip Maruti Shinde
Sonal Vilas Waghmare
Minal Kamesh Thorat
Vaishali Shankar Shinde
Vikas Shankar Shinde
Subhadra Shankar Shinde
Shankar Sambhaji Shinde
Hearing History
Judge: 2-2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C., Ghodegaon.
Compliance
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Compliance | |
| 03-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 01-01-2026 | Arguments | |
| 21-11-2025 | Arguments | |
| 10-10-2025 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts