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

Evidence

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

Specific Relief Act Section 22

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.

09-05-2026

Evidence

15-04-2026

Lok-Nyayalaya

16-03-2026

Evidence

06-02-2026

Evidence

07-01-2026

Issues

Interim Orders

12-08-2025
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division,Risod All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case