Gajanan Sidaji Bochare vs The Secretary Gram Panchayat shirla Advocate - Mankar Mohan Anandrao — 1000019/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 11. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHAK100002342015
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
1000033/2015
Filing Date
01-04-2015
Registration No
1000019/2015
Registration Date
01-04-2015
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Patur
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. Patur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gajanan Sidaji Bochare
Adv. Quazi Amjad Ali Sarfaraj Ali
Ganesh Sidaji bochare
Respondent(s)
The Secretary Gram Panchayat shirla Advocate - Mankar Mohan Anandrao
ramesh Narayan Andhare
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. Patur
Evidence Part Heard
Additional W.S.
Order on Exh
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 22-01-2026 | Additional W.S. |
| 05-12-2025 | Order on Exh |
| 31-10-2025 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 18-09-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case R.C.S. No. 19/2015 - Gajanan Vs. Secretary (Order dated 22.09.2017) The court allowed the amendment application filed by Defendant No. 2 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to clarify the property boundary description. The court found the amendment to be just and reasonable, material to determining the real question in controversy, and determined it would not change the nature of the suit or cause substantial prejudice to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 was directed to carry out the amendment by the next date of hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case R.C.S. No. 19/2015 - Gajanan Vs. Secretary (Order dated 22.09.2017) The court allowed the amendment application filed by Defendant No. 2 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to clarify the property boundary description. The court found the amendment to be just and reasonable, material to determining the real question in controversy, and determined it would not change the nature of the suit or cause substantial prejudice to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 was directed to carry out the amendment by the next date of hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts