Sunanda Vijay Kshirsagar vs Piraji Deorao Sonwane Advocate - NIL — 141/2020

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHAH220008902020

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

Next Hearing

16th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

194/2020

Filing Date

05-09-2020

Registration No

141/2020

Registration Date

05-09-2020

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Karjat

Judge

6-JT.CIVIL JUDGEJ.D. J.M.F.C.KARJATA'NAGAR

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 38

Petitioner(s)

Sunanda Vijay Kshirsagar

Adv. Dahiwalkar R. B.

Respondent(s)

Piraji Deorao Sonwane Advocate - NIL

Shantabai Piraji Sonwane

Vijay Piraji Sonwane

Sanjay @ Ganesh Piraji Sonwane

Hearing History

Judge: 6-JT.CIVIL JUDGEJ.D. J.M.F.C.KARJATA'NAGAR

25-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

09-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

18-12-2025

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

28-10-2025

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

25-08-2025

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

Interim Orders

10-09-2020
Order on T.I.
01-09-2023
Order on Exhibit

Case: Sunanda vs Piraji & Ors. (RCS No.141/2020) Outcome: The court rejected the joint application filed by the plaintiff and defendants for appointment of a court commissioner to fix boundaries of the suit property (Gat no.371). The court found that the property had already been measured with a report filed, and since the suit is solely for perpetual injunction (not possession recovery), the reasons for boundary fixation were improper and did not warrant a fresh commission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case: Sunanda vs Piraji & Ors. (RCS No.141/2020) Outcome: The court rejected the joint application filed by the plaintiff and defendants for appointment of a court commissioner to fix boundaries of the suit property (Gat no.371). The court found that the property had already been measured with a report filed, and since the suit is solely for perpetual injunction (not possession recovery), the reasons for boundary fixation were improper and did not warrant a fresh commission. 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

Civil Court Junior Division , Karjat All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case