SHRI. BHIMRAO RAJARAM DOKE vs SHRI. BALIRAM RAJARAM DOKE AND ORS — WP/6310/2019
Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order). Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 04th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM070069492019
Filing Number
WP/4141/2019
Filing Date
07-Feb-2019
Registration No
WP/6310/2019
Registration Date
29-May-2019
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. W. Chandwani
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. W. Chandwani
Bench Type
Single
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
04-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 16-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHRI. BHIMRAO RAJARAM DOKE
Adv. DRUPAD SOPAN PATIL
Respondent(s)
-
1.SHRI. BALIRAM RAJARAM DOKE AND ORS
-
2.SHRI HAMBIRRAO RAJARAM DOKE (DECEASED)(Legal Heir)2.
-
3.SHRI BHARAT HAMBIRRAO DOKE
-
4.SHRI NAVNATH RAJARAM DOKE
-
5.SHRI SUBHASH RAJARAM DOKE (SINCE DECEASED)(Legal Heir)4.
-
6.SMITA SUBHASH DOKE4.
-
7.OMKAR SUBHASH DOKE
-
8.SHRI PRABHAKAR VISHWANATH DOKE
Adv. rahul shivaji kadam
-
9.SHRI KAHINATH VISHWANATH DOKE
-
10.KUM KALYAN NAVNATH DOKE
Adv. rahul shivaji kadam
-
11.SHRI SURAJ MANOJ KADAM
-
12.SOU. KALAVATI TRIMBAL MANE
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
04-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. W. ChandwaniView PDF
Summary: The High Court dismissed Bhimrao Doke's writ petition challenging an amendment to a 1987 partition decree. The trial court had allowed Respondent No. 1's application to correct the property description in the decree under Section 152 CPC—changing Gat No. 151 from 7 Hectares 48 R to the correct 3 Hectares 19 R. While acknowledging a typographical error existed in the original plaint, the Court held this was a pure clerical/typographical mistake that inadvertently crept into the judgment and decree itself, not a substantive correction going to the merits requiring a review petition. The petition was dismissed as meritless. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-May-2026
For Orders (Regular)
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. W. Chandwani
-
17-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. W. ChandwaniView PDF
-
27-Feb-2025
For Admission
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar
-
14-Jan-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF
-
14-Jan-2025
Due Admission - 1
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar
-
02-Jan-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF
-
11-Nov-2024
For Orders (Due Matters)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav
-
07-Aug-2024
Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF
-
07-Aug-2024
For Orders (Due Matters)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav
-
08-Jul-2024
Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF
-
08-Jul-2024
For Circulation
Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav
-
28-Jun-2024
Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF
-
10-Jan-2024
For Orders (Due Matters)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar
-
21-Dec-2023
For Orders (Due Matters)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar
-
19-Dec-2023
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit BorkarView PDF
-
25-Oct-2023
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit BorkarView PDF
-
25-Oct-2023
For Circulation
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar
-
17-Oct-2023
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit BorkarView PDF
-
21-Apr-2021
Due Admission - 1
Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar
-
10-Mar-2021
Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF
-
10-Mar-2021
Due Admission - 2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar
-
09-Mar-2021
Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF
-
26-Aug-2020
For Admission
According To Sitting List
-
16-Sep-2019
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. KarnikView PDF
-
16-Sep-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Feb-2019
Case filed
Registration No. WP/6310/2019
Summary: The High Court dismissed Bhimrao Doke's writ petition challenging an amendment to a 1987 partition decree. The trial court had allowed Respondent No. 1's application to correct the property description in the decree under Section 152 CPC—changing Gat No. 151 from 7 Hectares 48 R to the correct 3 Hectares 19 R. While acknowledging a typographical error existed in the original plaint, the Court held this was a pure clerical/typographical mistake that inadvertently crept into the judgment and decree itself, not a substantive correction going to the merits requiring a review petition. The petition was dismissed as meritless. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts