BABASAHEB DHONDIBA KUTE AND OTHERS SATYAJEET SANJAY DIXIT vs KHANDU HARI WADEKAR DIED THROUGH LRS SAMPAT KHANDU WADEKAR AND OTHERS — SA/233/2026
Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 100. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM030113352026
e-Filing Number
13-03-2026
Filing Number
SA/8445/2026
Filing Date
18-Mar-2026
Registration No
SA/233/2026
Registration Date
15-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Last updated 12-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BABASAHEB DHONDIBA KUTE AND OTHERS SATYAJEET SANJAY DIXIT
-
2.SHOBHABAI BABASAHEB KUTE
-
3.ASHA BABASAHEB KUTE
-
4.MAYUR BABASAHEB KUTE
-
5.SAGAR BABASAHEB KUTE
Respondent(s)
-
1.KHANDU HARI WADEKAR DIED THROUGH LRS SAMPAT KHANDU WADEKAR AND OTHERS
-
2.1B BHAUSAHEB KHANDU WADEKAR
-
3.1C LAHANU KHANDU WADEKAR
-
4.1D NAMDEV KHANDU WADEKAR
-
5.1E JIJABAI UTTAM BURAKE
-
6.1F VIMAL BABAN BHOR
-
7.1G TULSABAI KHANDU WADEKAR
-
8.PANDU HARI WADEKAR
-
9.BALU HARI WADEKAR
-
10.KAILAS DHONDIBA KUTE
Case History
-
11-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
07-Jul-2026
For Orders
Hon'ble Shri Justice Mehroz K. Pathan
-
11-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. JoshiView PDF
Summary of SA 233/2026 The High Court at Aurangabad admitted a second appeal in a property encroachment dispute. The appellants challenged the First Appellate Court's dismissal of their suit, arguing the court should have directed re-measurement of the property rather than dismissing based on faulty measurements. The High Court identified a substantial question of law and issued notice to respondents returnable on 13.07.2026, with directions to call records and allow private service. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Apr-2026
For Orders
Hon'ble Shri Justice Mehroz K. Pathan
-
16-Apr-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. SA/233/2026
Summary of SA 233/2026 The High Court at Aurangabad admitted a second appeal in a property encroachment dispute. The appellants challenged the First Appellate Court's dismissal of their suit, arguing the court should have directed re-measurement of the property rather than dismissing based on faulty measurements. The High Court identified a substantial question of law and issued notice to respondents returnable on 13.07.2026, with directions to call records and allow private service. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts