Rafik Munir Shaikh vs Somnath Anandrao Patil Advocate - Mirza Minhaj Mohamadshafi — 150/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 79,O27. Status: Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSN050009712021
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
Filing Number
826/2020
Filing Date
08-10-2020
Registration No
150/2021
Registration Date
05-03-2021
Court
Civil Court Senior Division ,Islampur
Judge
2-JT CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION AND ADDL. CJM, ISLAMPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rafik Munir Shaikh
Adv. A I Inamdar
Respondent(s)
Somnath Anandrao Patil Advocate - Mirza Minhaj Mohamadshafi
Sanjay Dinkar Patil
Adv. Patil Ranjit Suresh
District Collector
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JT CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION AND ADDL. CJM, ISLAMPUR
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 09-02-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 08-01-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 01-12-2025 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 15-11-2025 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY The court rejected the defendant's application to dismiss the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. The plaintiff's suit for compensation for malicious prosecution against two police officers was held to be maintainable, as the court found that: (1) the suit is not barred by limitation under Section 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act, applying the Limitation Act's provisions instead; (2) the good faith defense requires full trial evidence rather than threshold dismissal; and (3) the mandatory notice requirement under Section 80 CPC was satisfied by issuing notice to the District Magistrate/Collector. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY The court rejected the defendant's application to dismiss the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. The plaintiff's suit for compensation for malicious prosecution against two police officers was held to be maintainable, as the court found that: (1) the suit is not barred by limitation under Section 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act, applying the Limitation Act's provisions instead; (2) the good faith defense requires full trial evidence rather than threshold dismissal; and (3) the mandatory notice requirement under Section 80 CPC was satisfied by issuing notice to the District Magistrate/Collector. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts