RAJENDRA MANIK SHINDE AND ORS. vs SHAHAJI NARAYAN SHINDE AND ORS. Advocate - amit sale — CRA/582/2023

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 20. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 26th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010392752023

Filing Number

CRA/23413/2023

Filing Date

25-Aug-2023

Registration No

CRA/582/2023

Registration Date

06-Oct-2023

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Bench Type

Single

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 11 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

26-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 21-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 20

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJENDRA MANIK SHINDE AND ORS.

    Adv. BHUSHAN RAUT

  2. 2.KAMINI RAJENDRA SHINDE

  3. 3.VRUSHABH RAJENDRA SHINDE

  4. 4.SAURABH RAJENDRA SHINDE

  5. 5.TEJASWINI SAURABH SHINDE

  6. 6.KOMAL VRUSHABH SHINDE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHAHAJI NARAYAN SHINDE AND ORS. Advocate - amit sale

  2. 2.SANBHAJI NARAYAN SHINDE

    Adv. amit sale

  3. 3.BHAUSAHEB SHAHAJI SHINDE

    Adv. amit sale

  4. 4.KUNAL SHAHAJI SHINDE

    Adv. amit sale

  5. 5.BANSILA SANBHAJI SHINDE

    Adv. amit sale

  6. 6.ABHISHEK SANBHAJI SHINDE

    Adv. amit sale

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

    The Bombay High Court rejected the Civil Revision Application filed by Rajendra Manik Shinde & Others, upholding the Trial Court's rejection of their plaint dismissal application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court found that disputed factual questions regarding whether the cause of action arose from the 1983 partition or the 2017 discovery of lesser land area in the Consolidation Scheme records require evidentiary inquiry at trial, making premature dismissal inappropriate. The issue of limitation was kept open for later determination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  4. 14-Jan-2025

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav

  5. 27-Nov-2024

    For Orders (Objection Not Removed)

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)

  6. 13-Nov-2024

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)View PDF

  7. 13-Nov-2024

    For Orders (Objection Not Removed)

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)

  8. 16-Oct-2024

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)View PDF

  9. 30-Sep-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF

  10. 30-Sep-2024

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav

  11. 23-Jul-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF

  12. 23-Jul-2024

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav

  13. 01-Jul-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF

  14. 01-Jul-2024

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav

  15. 20-Mar-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF

  16. 20-Mar-2024

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav

  17. 21-Feb-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF

  18. 20-Feb-2024

    For Orders (Objection Not Removed)

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)

  19. 06-Feb-2024

    Shri. S.R. Agrawal, Registrar(Judl II)View PDF

  20. 05-Feb-2024

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar

  21. 11-Dec-2023

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit BorkarView PDF

  22. 11-Dec-2023

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar

  23. 16-Oct-2023

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit BorkarView PDF

  24. 16-Oct-2023

    For Circulation (Fresh)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar

  25. 09-Oct-2023

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit BorkarView PDF

  26. 09-Oct-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 25-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRA/582/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court rejected the Civil Revision Application filed by Rajendra Manik Shinde & Others, upholding the Trial Court's rejection of their plaint dismissal application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court found that disputed factual questions regarding whether the cause of action arose from the 1983 partition or the 2017 discovery of lesser land area in the Consolidation Scheme records require evidentiary inquiry at trial, making premature dismissal inappropriate. The issue of limitation was kept open for later determination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case