Sahebrao Vitthal Bharshankar vs Charlas Keru Pandit Advocate - Gavhane B. R. — 36/2019

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96,. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.

R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal

CNR: MHAH130008042019

Arguments

Next Hearing

10th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

251/2019

Filing Date

05-11-2019

Registration No

36/2019

Registration Date

05-11-2019

Court

District and Sessions Court, Newasa.

Judge

3-Dist. Judge-2 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Newasa

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 96,

Petitioner(s)

Sahebrao Vitthal Bharshankar

Adv. Shaikh R. A.

Respondent(s)

Charlas Keru Pandit Advocate - Gavhane B. R.

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Dist. Judge-2 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Newasa

08-04-2026

Arguments

09-03-2026

Arguments

04-02-2026

Arguments

19-12-2025

Arguments

07-11-2025

Arguments

Interim Orders

19-09-2025
Order on Exhibit

Summary: The District Judge rejected the application for remand of RCS No. 149/2016 filed by appellant Sahebrao Bharshankar. The court held that since RCS No. 149/2016 is a standalone suit for perpetual injunction (distinct from the partition suit RCS No. 57/2008 which was remanded for fresh trial), remanding it would serve no purpose and no grounds for retrial were substantiated. The court affirmed the earlier decree dated 10/10/2019 restraining Sahebrao Bharshankar from obstructing Charles Pandit's possession of the suit property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The District Judge rejected the application for remand of RCS No. 149/2016 filed by appellant Sahebrao Bharshankar. The court held that since RCS No. 149/2016 is a standalone suit for perpetual injunction (distinct from the partition suit RCS No. 57/2008 which was remanded for fresh trial), remanding it would serve no purpose and no grounds for retrial were substantiated. The court affirmed the earlier decree dated 10/10/2019 restraining Sahebrao Bharshankar from obstructing Charles Pandit's possession of the suit property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Court, Newasa. All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case