Vaishall Gajanan Magar vs Abhijit Dattatrya Wankhede Advocate - Raut Jitendra Rajaram — 19/2024
Case under Specific Relief (amendment) Act Section 21. Status: Compliance. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHWS020002592024
Next Hearing
10th July 2026
e-Filing Number
26-03-2024
Filing Number
263/2024
Filing Date
27-03-2024
Registration No
19/2024
Registration Date
27-03-2024
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Washim
Judge
1-Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Washim.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vaishall Gajanan Magar
Adv. VISHWAKARMA INDRESHKUMAR RAMLAL
Respondent(s)
Abhijit Dattatrya Wankhede Advocate - Raut Jitendra Rajaram
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Washim.
Compliance
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-06-2026 | Compliance |
| 08-04-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 16-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 23-01-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 03-01-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
Interim Orders
Case 19/2024 Summary: The defendant's application to set aside the "no written statement" (W.S.) order and file his written statement was allowed with costs of Rs. 1,000. The court found the defendant had been granted ample opportunities to file his written statement over multiple adjournments but failed to do so, citing delay and laches; however, considering the nature of the proceeding, the application was permitted subject to cost compensation to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 19/2024 Summary: The defendant's application to set aside the "no written statement" (W.S.) order and file his written statement was allowed with costs of Rs. 1,000. The court found the defendant had been granted ample opportunities to file his written statement over multiple adjournments but failed to do so, citing delay and laches; however, considering the nature of the proceeding, the application was permitted subject to cost compensation to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts