PRASHANT SUNDARLAL SAVAJI vs MAHEBUBKHA KARIMKHA PATHAN DIED THROUGH LRS ASEF KHAN MAHEBUB PATHAN AND OTHERS — WP/12937/2024

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030440082024

Filing Number

WP/31488/2024

Filing Date

16-Nov-2024

Registration No

WP/12937/2024

Registration Date

27-Nov-2024

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. Dhote

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. Dhote

Bench Type

Single

Category

SERVICE MATTERS OTHER THAN ID ACT AND RELATED ENACTMENT ( 35 )

Sub-Category

OTHER ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227
C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRASHANT SUNDARLAL SAVAJI

    Adv. PRAVIN N KALANI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAHEBUBKHA KARIMKHA PATHAN DIED THROUGH LRS ASEF KHAN MAHEBUB PATHAN AND OTHERS

    Adv. Pawade Nilkanth R FOR R/17,Deshmukh Shashibhushan P. FOR R. NO. 2 AND 1.A, 1.B,Adv. S. P. Deshmukh for R.no. 5 (Appear in court) 1123

  2. 2.GULBEGUM MAHEBUB PATHAN

  3. 3.NAYYAR MUJIBODDIN SIDDIQUI

  4. 4.RAFIYODDIN NISARODDIN SIDDIQUI

  5. 5.TAHEJIBODDIN NISARODDIN SIDDIQUI

  6. 6.VASIYABEGUM MIRZA KHADIR BEG

  7. 7.NAJEMABEGUM SHAIKH IMRAN

  8. 8.SHEKHARCHAND JIVANLALJI PATNI

  9. 9.NAJAMODDIN NASERODDIN SIDDIQUI

  10. 10.NAJERODDIN NASERODDIN SIDDIQUI

  11. 11.SAMIRODDIN NJERODDIN SIDDIQUI

  12. 12.NAJEMODDIN NAJERODDIN SIDDIQUI

  13. 13.NURODDIN NAJERODDIN SIDDIQUI

  14. 14.NIZAMODDIN NASERODDIN SIDDIQUI

  15. 15.MUJIBODDIN NAHERODDIN SIDDIQUI

  16. 16.KAZI NADERODDIN NASERODDIN SIDDIQUI

  17. 17.RAHUL SAHEBRAO CHAVHAN

  18. 18.SAYYAD NURRODDIN SAYYAD AMIRODDIN

  19. 19.SAYYAD JAINODDIN SAYYAD NURODDIN

  20. 20.SAYYAD ELYAS SAYYAD NURODDIN

  21. 21.VASIM AHEMAD MOHAMMAD HAKIM

  22. 22.SHAIKH SADEK SHAIKH GULAM QURESHI

  23. 23.FEROZ KHAN KHAYYUB KHAN PATHAN

  24. 24.TAPOVAN SHAHU LAVANYA SHAHU

  25. 25.SHAIKH SALIM SHAIKH RAUF

  26. 26.SHAIKH ISRAR SHAIKH ABRAR

  27. 27.SAHIKH RAFIQUE AHEMAD SHAIKH MOINODDIN

  28. 28.SHAIKH AYYUB SHAIKH HUSSAIN TAMBOLI

  29. 29.BALIRAM VAIJNATH TAVADE

  30. 30.TAJMMUL HUSSAIN PATEL

  31. 31.SHAIKH MUSA SHAIKH CHAND

  32. 32.SHAIKH MAULA SHAIKH NANHHU

  33. 33.GANESH BABURAO BHAKARE

  34. 34.SANJAY BABAN BHAVSAR

  35. 35.MOHD. MASI MOHD. RAFI

  36. 36.SHAIKH KATHU SHAIKH KAMAL SHAHA

  37. 37.ASEFKHAN MAHEBOOGKHAN PATHAN

  38. 38.JAKERBEG SHAH ALAMBEG MIRZA

  39. 39.MIRZA HAFIZ BEG MIRZA JAKER BEG

  40. 40.MIRZA FAZIL BAIG MIRZA JAKER BEG

  41. 41.MIRZA RIYAZ BAIG MIRZA JAKER BEG

  42. 42.THE CHIEF OFFICER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JINTUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. DhoteView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/12937/2024 Court Decision: The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) allowed the writ petition and quashed the trial court's order appointing a Court Commissioner to measure the suit property and demarcate boundaries. The Court held that since the suit prayers for measurement and demarcation are identical to the Court Commissioner's proposed scope, appointing the Commissioner would effectively grant final relief before trial, amounting to improper evidence collection. The Court emphasized that plaintiffs must prove their case independently, and parties may reapply for Commissioner appointment in future if circumstances warrant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Neeraj P. Dhote

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar

  5. 16-Apr-2026

    For Admission - After Notice [Civil Side Matters]

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Arun R. Pedneker

  6. 18-Mar-2026

    Urgent Circulation - CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar

  7. 04-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice S. G. ChapalgaonkarView PDF

  8. 19-Jan-2026

    For Admission - After Notice [Civil Side Matters]

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Arun R. Pedneker

  9. 01-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Arun R. PednekerView PDF

  10. 30-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Arun R. PednekerView PDF

  11. 30-Sep-2025

    Due Admission CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

  12. 18-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. JoshiView PDF

  13. 17-Sep-2025

    Part Heard - CIVIL Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit W. Joshi

  14. 20-Aug-2025

    Part Heard - CIVIL Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit W. Joshi

  15. 18-Aug-2025

    Due Admission CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit W. Joshi

  16. 13-Aug-2025

    Due Admission CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit W. Joshi

  17. 11-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit W. JoshiView PDF

  18. 11-Aug-2025

    Due Admission CIVIL

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit W. Joshi

  19. 21-Jul-2025

    Await Notices CIVIL Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

  20. 05-May-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. JoshiView PDF

  21. 05-May-2025

    Await Notices CIVIL Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

  22. 17-Mar-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. JoshiView PDF

  23. 17-Mar-2025

    Await Notices CIVIL Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

  24. 20-Jan-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. JoshiView PDF

  25. 20-Jan-2025

    Petitions For Admission - Fresh CIVIL Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

  26. 28-Nov-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. JoshiView PDF

  27. 28-Nov-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 16-Nov-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/12937/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/12937/2024 Court Decision: The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) allowed the writ petition and quashed the trial court's order appointing a Court Commissioner to measure the suit property and demarcate boundaries. The Court held that since the suit prayers for measurement and demarcation are identical to the Court Commissioner's proposed scope, appointing the Commissioner would effectively grant final relief before trial, amounting to improper evidence collection. The Court emphasized that plaintiffs must prove their case independently, and parties may reapply for Commissioner appointment in future if circumstances warrant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case