Prakash Mahadu alies Mahadaji Walke vs Mahadu alies Mahadaji Namaji Walke Advocate - Narwade Ravindra Pandharirao — 95/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 22. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHWS080013062024
Next Hearing
25th June 2026
e-Filing Number
18-10-2024
Filing Number
273/2024
Filing Date
21-10-2024
Registration No
95/2024
Registration Date
21-10-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division,Risod
Judge
2-Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Risod.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Prakash Mahadu alies Mahadaji Walke
Adv. CHOPADE PRABHAKAR RUSTUMA
Respondent(s)
Mahadu alies Mahadaji Namaji Walke Advocate - Narwade Ravindra Pandharirao
Chandrabhaga Bhagwan Galande
Ambadas Mahadu alies Mahadaji Walke
Janabai Jagannath Mutkule
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Risod.
Evidence
Lok-Nyayalaya
Evidence
Evidence
Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 15-04-2026 | Lok-Nyayalaya |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 07-01-2026 | Issues |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Prakash v. Mahadu & Ors. (95/2024) The defendants' application to set aside the "no written statement" (no w.s.) order and obtain permission to file their written statement was ALLOWED. The court granted permission for defendants to file their written statement, subject to payment of Rs. 300/- costs. The court found the defendants' reasons for delay unjustifiable but allowed the application considering the parties' rights and nature of the suit, as permitting the written statement would not prejudice the plaintiff and would ensure the case is disposed of on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Prakash v. Mahadu & Ors. (95/2024) The defendants' application to set aside the "no written statement" (no w.s.) order and obtain permission to file their written statement was ALLOWED. The court granted permission for defendants to file their written statement, subject to payment of Rs. 300/- costs. The court found the defendants' reasons for delay unjustifiable but allowed the application considering the parties' rights and nature of the suit, as permitting the written statement would not prejudice the plaintiff and would ensure the case is disposed of on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts