PAWAN KUMAR vs SUKANTA PANDIT — 80/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 123. Disposed: Uncontested--Full Satisfaction on 22nd April 2026.

Case disposed

Scc Suit

CNR: WBSP070002992026

Filing Number

283/2026

Filing Date

02-Feb-2026

Registration No

80/2026

Registration Date

02-Feb-2026

Court

Additional District Judge, Sealdeh, South 24 Parganas

Judge

7-Scc

Decision Date

22-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Full Satisfaction

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 123

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PAWAN KUMAR

    Adv. INDRANI GHOSH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUKANTA PANDIT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 22-Apr-2026

    orderView PDF

    Case Summary: Pawan Kumar v. Sukanta Pandit (80/2026) The court decreed the suit ex-parte in favor of plaintiff Pawan Kumar for recovery of Rs. 7,500/- lent as an accommodation loan to defendant Sukanta Pandit on 18/03/2024. The court accepted the unchallenged testimony of the plaintiff and the promissory note (exhibit-2) as sufficient proof of the loan agreement and repayment obligation. The defendant is directed to pay the decretal amount within three months, failing which execution proceedings may be initiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Scc

  4. 21-Apr-2026

    Exparte Hearing

    Scc

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Further Order

    Scc

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    Scc

  7. 02-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 02-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 80/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Pawan Kumar v. Sukanta Pandit (80/2026) The court decreed the suit ex-parte in favor of plaintiff Pawan Kumar for recovery of Rs. 7,500/- lent as an accommodation loan to defendant Sukanta Pandit on 18/03/2024. The court accepted the unchallenged testimony of the plaintiff and the promissory note (exhibit-2) as sufficient proof of the loan agreement and repayment obligation. The defendant is directed to pay the decretal amount within three months, failing which execution proceedings may be initiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case