Ashok Mohan Shelake vs Mohan Maruti Shelake Advocate - Kapase Sudhir Baburao — 96/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130001332021
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
142/2021
Filing Date
16-02-2021
Registration No
96/2021
Registration Date
17-02-2021
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ashok Mohan Shelake
Adv. Ghodake Jayashri Shivaji
Taramati Mohan Shelake
Adv. Ghodake Jayashri Shivaji
Respondent(s)
Mohan Maruti Shelake Advocate - Kapase Sudhir Baburao
Nirmala Mohan Shelake
Anna Mohan Shelake
Rupali Mohan Shelake After Marriage Rupali Vijay Doifode
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 13-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 24-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 27-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 19-12-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
Case 96/2021 Summary The application filed by Defendants 1-3 to set aside the "no written statement" order was allowed. The court set aside the previous order and permitted the defendants to file their written statement on record, attributing their delay to unavailability of necessary documents rather than intentional non-compliance. Defendants were required to pay Rs. 500 as cost to the plaintiff for the delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 96/2021 Summary The application filed by Defendants 1-3 to set aside the "no written statement" order was allowed. The court set aside the previous order and permitted the defendants to file their written statement on record, attributing their delay to unavailability of necessary documents rather than intentional non-compliance. Defendants were required to pay Rs. 500 as cost to the plaintiff for the delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts