Bhausaheb Laxman Khetmalis vs Ashok Motiram Khetmails Advocate - Deshmukh S. P. — 101/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAH230002142016
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
229/2016
Filing Date
31-03-2016
Registration No
101/2016
Registration Date
02-04-2016
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Shrigonda
Judge
3-2nd- Jt Civil Judge S D Shrigonda
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhausaheb Laxman Khetmalis
Adv. Kalokhe S. S.
Rohidas Tukaram Khetmalis
Adv. Kalokhe S. S.
Respondent(s)
Ashok Motiram Khetmails Advocate - Deshmukh S. P.
Sopan Rambhau Khetmalis
Raju Rambhau Khetmalis
Dattu Laxman Khetmalis
Banabai Baban Ukande
Sujata Nagnath Khetmalis
Kondabai Baban Edhate
Chandrakant Deoram Khetmalis
Yeshodabai Deoram Khetmalis
Tukaram Bhau Khetmalis
Shivaji Bhau Khetmalis
Hausrao Dagadu Khetmalis
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd- Jt Civil Judge S D Shrigonda
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 09-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 13-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 10-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 23-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
This is a civil suit (Case No. 101/2016) concerning a land dispute in Goa, decided on 03/10/2024. The court has partially allowed the plaintiff's claim, finding that the defendant No. 1 has not encroached on the plaintiff's property as alleged, and that any discrepancy in land measurements is attributable to road area deductions rather than unauthorized occupation. The suit is disposed of with no relief granted to the plaintiff regarding alleged encroachment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a civil suit (Case No. 101/2016) concerning a land dispute in Goa, decided on 03/10/2024. The court has partially allowed the plaintiff's claim, finding that the defendant No. 1 has not encroached on the plaintiff's property as alleged, and that any discrepancy in land measurements is attributable to road area deductions rather than unauthorized occupation. The suit is disposed of with no relief granted to the plaintiff regarding alleged encroachment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts