Haribhau Rangnath Dhawan (Deceased)(Legal Heir) vs Dadaram Eknath Dhawan Advocate - Nagwade H. S. — 1/2018
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHAH230008802017
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
896/2017
Filing Date
21-12-2017
Registration No
1/2018
Registration Date
03-01-2018
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Shrigonda
Judge
11-Civil Judge Senior Division Shrigonda
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Haribhau Rangnath Dhawan (Deceased)(Legal Heir)
Adv. Phadnis M. R.1.
Mirabai Vishwanath Auti
Adv. Phadnis M. R.
Respondent(s)
Dadaram Eknath Dhawan Advocate - Nagwade H. S.
Ashru Eknath Dhawan
Jagannath Madhav Dhawan
Vitthal Madhav Dhawan
Dnyandeo Madhav Dhawan
Shantabai Madhav Dhawan
Dhananjay Vishwanath Auti
Hearing History
Judge: 11-Civil Judge Senior Division Shrigonda
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 15-01-2026 | Evidence | |
| 18-11-2025 | Evidence | |
| 11-09-2025 | Hearing | |
| 03-07-2025 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case: Special Civil Suit No. 1/2018 with Application No. 5 (CNR-MHAH23-000880-2017) Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition for relief (Application No. 5) as the plaintiff failed to establish a valid claim with proper documentary evidence. The court found that the plaintiff could not prove the existence of an undivided ancestral property or demonstrate legitimate inheritance rights as required by law. The court upheld the property division (City Survey Nos. 2041, 2042, 2043) as previously determined and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal for revisionary relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: Special Civil Suit No. 1/2018 with Application No. 5 (CNR-MHAH23-000880-2017) Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition for relief (Application No. 5) as the plaintiff failed to establish a valid claim with proper documentary evidence. The court found that the plaintiff could not prove the existence of an undivided ancestral property or demonstrate legitimate inheritance rights as required by law. The court upheld the property division (City Survey Nos. 2041, 2042, 2043) as previously determined and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal for revisionary relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts