Balasaheb Zumbarrao Gholap vs Amol Suresh Gholap Advocate - Bhose S. K. — 234/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38,. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAH230005282021
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
511/2021
Filing Date
12-08-2021
Registration No
234/2021
Registration Date
12-08-2021
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Shrigonda
Judge
11-Civil Judge Senior Division Shrigonda
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Balasaheb Zumbarrao Gholap
Adv. Gaikwad Z. T.
Zumbarrao Ananta Gholap
Adv. Bhoyate D. A.
Respondent(s)
Amol Suresh Gholap Advocate - Bhose S. K.
Vaibhav Suresh Gholap
Adv. Bhose S. K.
Hearing History
Judge: 11-Civil Judge Senior Division Shrigonda
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 15-01-2026 | Evidence | |
| 15-12-2025 | Evidence | |
| 09-10-2025 | Evidence | |
| 21-08-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary This civil suit (Civil Case No. 234/2021, Petition No. 5) involves a land ownership dispute in Shiggaon, Ahmednagar district. The petitioner (plaintiff) claims ownership of Plot No. 15 (0.89 hectares) and alleges that respondents (defendants) are unlawfully obstructing their possession and attempting encroachment on 43 acres of the adjacent Plot No. 18/1. Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish the required prima facie case and evidence of possession or obstruction. The court noted lack of documentary proof regarding the petitioner's ownership, boundary demarcation, and the alleged trespassing. The court held that merely asserting claims in the petition without supporting evidence is insufficient. Costs will be determined at the final disposal of the case. Order dated January 4, 2022. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This civil suit (Civil Case No. 234/2021, Petition No. 5) involves a land ownership dispute in Shiggaon, Ahmednagar district. The petitioner (plaintiff) claims ownership of Plot No. 15 (0.89 hectares) and alleges that respondents (defendants) are unlawfully obstructing their possession and attempting encroachment on 43 acres of the adjacent Plot No. 18/1. Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish the required prima facie case and evidence of possession or obstruction. The court noted lack of documentary proof regarding the petitioner's ownership, boundary demarcation, and the alleged trespassing. The court held that merely asserting claims in the petition without supporting evidence is insufficient. Costs will be determined at the final disposal of the case. Order dated January 4, 2022. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts