Maharudra Hadnure vs Mansur Pathan Advocate - Shinde Nitin Gajendra — 62/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130000702017
Next Hearing
22nd June 2026
Filing Number
270/2017
Filing Date
12-01-2017
Registration No
62/2017
Registration Date
13-01-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Maharudra Hadnure
Adv. Khupsare Milind Jayshankar
Respondent(s)
Mansur Pathan Advocate - Shinde Nitin Gajendra
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 20-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 18-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 62/2017 (Maharudra vs. Mansur) The plaintiff's power of attorney holder applied for permission to lead evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, who is unable to testify due to paralysis. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that the matter had been pending since 2019 and that the delay was deliberate. The Joint Civil Judge granted the application, finding that given the plaintiff's age and medical condition, it was necessary to permit his son (the power of attorney holder) to lead evidence on his behalf. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 62/2017 (Maharudra vs. Mansur) The plaintiff's power of attorney holder applied for permission to lead evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, who is unable to testify due to paralysis. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that the matter had been pending since 2019 and that the delay was deliberate. The Joint Civil Judge granted the application, finding that given the plaintiff's age and medical condition, it was necessary to permit his son (the power of attorney holder) to lead evidence on his behalf. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts