Subhash Nanabhau Akolkar vs Bhausaheb Dhondiba Akolkar Advocate - Khedkar A. D. — 25/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 37. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHAH200001462022
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
36/2022
Filing Date
24-01-2022
Registration No
25/2022
Registration Date
24-01-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pathardi
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C PATHARDI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Subhash Nanabhau Akolkar
Adv. Ghadge M. S.
Respondent(s)
Bhausaheb Dhondiba Akolkar Advocate - Khedkar A. D.
Chandrakant Dhondiba Akolkar
Adv. Khedkar A. D.
Kamal Sadashiv Gade
Adv. Khedkar A. D.
Vijaya Rabhaji Bandal
Adv. Khedkar A. D.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C PATHARDI
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 19-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 12-09-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-07-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary R.C.S. No. 25/2022 — Subhash vs. Bhausaheb & Ors The plaintiff's application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain defendants from obstructing his use of a shared well was rejected. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as documentary evidence showed the well was dug in 1959, after the 1938 partition between the grandfathers, contradicting the plaintiff's claim of joint ownership. The court directed parties to proceed with the main suit expeditiously. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary R.C.S. No. 25/2022 — Subhash vs. Bhausaheb & Ors The plaintiff's application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain defendants from obstructing his use of a shared well was rejected. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as documentary evidence showed the well was dug in 1959, after the 1938 partition between the grandfathers, contradicting the plaintiff's claim of joint ownership. The court directed parties to proceed with the main suit expeditiously. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts