KRUSHNA TUKARAM SHELKE AND ANOTHER vs DNYANOBA KRUSHNA SHELKE AND OTHERS — WP/6940/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 226 AND 227. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 01st April 2026.

CNR: HCBM030216892025

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WP/16279/2025

Filing Date

03-06-2025

Registration No

WP/6940/2025

Registration Date

05-06-2025

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

01st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226 AND 227
C.P.C.- (NON-INTERLOCUTORY ORDER) Section ---

Petitioner(s)

KRUSHNA TUKARAM SHELKE AND ANOTHER

Adv. Rahul Pandhari Cheble

PURUSHOTTAM TUKARAM SHELKE

Respondent(s)

DNYANOBA KRUSHNA SHELKE AND OTHERS

Adv. R.NO 1 TO 3 SERVED,GUNDRE SURAJ V FOR R. NO. 1 TO 3 1123

GAYABAI DNYANOBA SHELKE

UDDHAV DNYANOBA SHELKE

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR

01-04-2026
17-03-2026
10-03-2026

DUE ADMISSION CIVIL

16-02-2026

DUE ADMISSION CIVIL

08-01-2026

FOR ADMISSION - AFTER NOTICE [CIVIL SIDE MATTERS]

Orders

01-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) allowed the writ petition and quashed the trial court's order appointing a Court Commissioner at the nascent stage of the suit, holding that such appointment was premature when issues remained unframed. The court permitted the plaintiff to re-file the application for Court Commissioner appointment only after evidence is recorded, when the court determines expert assistance is necessary for reaching conclusions in the ownership and injunction case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) allowed the writ petition and quashed the trial court's order appointing a Court Commissioner at the nascent stage of the suit, holding that such appointment was premature when issues remained unframed. The court permitted the plaintiff to re-file the application for Court Commissioner appointment only after evidence is recorded, when the court determines expert assistance is necessary for reaching conclusions in the ownership and injunction case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case