Raghnath Gena Gawali vs Kisnabai Jagannath Hande Advocate - Patki S. Y. — 123/2023
Case under Indian Succession Act Section 4. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHAH230003752018
Next Hearing
28th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
375/2018
Filing Date
13-06-2018
Registration No
123/2023
Registration Date
14-06-2018
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Shrigonda
Judge
11-Civil Judge Senior Division Shrigonda
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Raghnath Gena Gawali
Adv. Kulkarni N. P.
Respondent(s)
Kisnabai Jagannath Hande Advocate - Patki S. Y.
Chandrabhaga Digambar Hande Deceased(Legal Heir) 2.
Umesh Digambar Hande
Adv. Patki S. Y.2.
Usha Suresh Nalge
Rukhmini Vitthal Shinde
Hirabai Vitthal Lawande
Rajesh Rangnath Gawali
Mukesh Rangnath Gawali
Asha Manik Vethekar
Adv. Patki S. Y.
Usha Vinayak Vethekar
Adv. Patki S. Y.
Jayshri Nanasaheb Vethekar
Hearing History
Judge: 11-Civil Judge Senior Division Shrigonda
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 21-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 03-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 30-10-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary The petition (Application No. 73) filed in Special Civil Case No. 123/2023 has been dismissed as not maintainable. The court found that the petitioner's claim for restoration of the status quo regarding the disputed property was premature, as the 7/12 extract (property record) regarding the shares of respondents 7-9 had not yet been finalized by the revenue authority. The court directed the petitioner and respondents to pursue their claims before the competent revenue officer without interfering in the pending revenue proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary The petition (Application No. 73) filed in Special Civil Case No. 123/2023 has been dismissed as not maintainable. The court found that the petitioner's claim for restoration of the status quo regarding the disputed property was premature, as the 7/12 extract (property record) regarding the shares of respondents 7-9 had not yet been finalized by the revenue authority. The court directed the petitioner and respondents to pursue their claims before the competent revenue officer without interfering in the pending revenue proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts