Manisha Hanmant Pawar vs Aatmaram Ramchandra Salunkhe — 538/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Partition. Status: Order. Next hearing: 15th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST050002622020
Next Hearing
15th April 2026
Filing Number
262/2020
Filing Date
13-08-2020
Registration No
538/2020
Registration Date
18-08-2020
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Karad
Judge
6-4th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Manisha Hanmant Pawar
Adv. Patel Imtiyaj Rasul
Respondent(s)
Aatmaram Ramchandra Salunkhe
Sangram Bhimrao Salunkhe
Varsha Rajendra Shinde
Lilawati Atmaram Salunkhe
Asha Avinash Shingan
Nisha Rajendra Pawar
Dipali Santosh Mahadik
Ashwini Ravindra Warekar
Branch Officer, Dnandip Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Mumbai, Branch Islampr
Recovery Officer, Dnandip Co-op. Credit Society, Ltd. Mumbai, Branch Islampur
Sub Divisional Officer, Karad
Tahasildar, Karad
Circle Officer, Kale, Tal. Karad
Hearing History
Judge: 6-4th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karad
Order
Steps
Steps
Steps
Steps
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Order |
| 16-01-2026 | Steps |
| 07-11-2025 | Steps |
| 30-09-2025 | Steps |
| 18-09-2025 | Steps |
Interim Orders
Summary: The plaint filed by Manisha Pawar against Dyandeep Co-operative Credit Society (Defendant No. 9) has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court found that the plaintiff failed to issue the mandatory notice required under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before instituting the partition suit, as the suit involved acts touching the business of the cooperative society (loan advancement and recovery). Any status-quo order against the defendant stands vacated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The plaint filed by Manisha Pawar against Dyandeep Co-operative Credit Society (Defendant No. 9) has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court found that the plaintiff failed to issue the mandatory notice required under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before instituting the partition suit, as the suit involved acts touching the business of the cooperative society (loan advancement and recovery). Any status-quo order against the defendant stands vacated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts