Ramchandra Balaso Jadhav vs Ninad Rajesh Shaha Advocate - Kazi J.M. — 80/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section order. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST180007692025
Filing Number
772/2025
Filing Date
20-Apr-2021
Registration No
80/2021
Registration Date
20-Apr-2021
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Vaduj
Judge
3-2nd Jt Cjsd and Addl CJM Vaduj
Last updated 26-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ramchandra Balaso Jadhav
Adv. Karande P.D.
Respondent(s)
-
1.Ninad Rajesh Shaha Advocate - Kazi J.M.
Case History
-
10-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Evidence Part Heard
2nd Jt Cjsd and Addl CJM Vaduj
-
30-Jan-2026
Evidence Part Heard
2nd Jt Cjsd and Addl CJM Vaduj
-
16-Jan-2026
Evidence Part Heard
2nd Jt Cjsd and Addl CJM Vaduj
-
05-Dec-2025
Evidence Part Heard
2nd Jt Cjsd and Addl CJM Vaduj
-
07-Nov-2025
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case Summary R.C.S. No. 80 of 2021 | Ramchandra Balaso Jadhav vs. Ninad Rajesh Shaha The court allowed the defendant's application to produce an office copy of the notice dated 01.12.2020 and postal acknowledgment as evidence, subject to admissibility. The court found that producing these documents would not prejudice the plaintiff and would assist the court in reaching a proper conclusion. No order as to costs was passed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Nov-2025
Evidence Part Heard
2nd Jt Cjsd and Addl CJM Vaduj
-
10-Oct-2025
Evidence Part Heard
2nd Jt Cjsd and Addl CJM Vaduj
-
12-Sep-2025
Evidence
2nd Jt Cjsd and Addl CJM Vaduj
-
01-Aug-2025
Hearing
2nd Jt Cjsd and Addl CJM Vaduj
-
11-Jul-2025
Hearing
2nd Jt Cjsd and Addl CJM Vaduj
-
13-Jun-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Apr-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 80/2021
Case Summary R.C.S. No. 80 of 2021 | Ramchandra Balaso Jadhav vs. Ninad Rajesh Shaha The court allowed the defendant's application to produce an office copy of the notice dated 01.12.2020 and postal acknowledgment as evidence, subject to admissibility. The court found that producing these documents would not prejudice the plaintiff and would assist the court in reaching a proper conclusion. No order as to costs was passed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts