Tejrao Genuji Jadhav vs Majhar Sayyad Gafar Sayyad Advocate - Dange V.D. — 74/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHAU110009432023

Evidence

Next Hearing

09th June 2026

Filing Number

134/2023

Filing Date

21-07-2023

Registration No

74/2023

Registration Date

24-07-2023

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Phulambri

Judge

2-Jt. Civil Judge JD and JMFC, Phulambri

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 2

Petitioner(s)

Tejrao Genuji Jadhav

Adv. Wakode A.P.

Kuldeep Tejrao Jadhav

Respondent(s)

Majhar Sayyad Gafar Sayyad Advocate - Dange V.D.

Akram Sayyad Jafar Sayyad

Adv. Dange V.D.

Aslam Sayyad Gafar Sayyad

Adv. Dange V.D.

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge JD and JMFC, Phulambri

20-04-2026

Evidence

12-03-2026

Evidence

12-02-2026

Evidence

05-02-2026

Evidence

08-01-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

12-01-2024
Issues
12-01-2024
Issues
06-11-2023
Order on T.I.
04-05-2024
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: RCS No. 74/2023 In this perpetual injunction suit, plaintiffs Tejrao Genuji Jadhav and Kuldeep Tejrao Jadhav sought appointment of a court commissioner to identify disputed agricultural property in Gut No. 21 at Phulambri and conduct spot verification. The defendants contested, arguing the plaintiffs lacked rights to the property and were improperly attempting to collect evidence through the commissioner. The Joint Civil Judge rejected the application, finding that court commissioners cannot be appointed merely to gather evidence for parties—their use is limited to specific purposes like determining property values or damages under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC. The application was dismissed with costs of Rs. 200/-. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS No. 74/2023 In this perpetual injunction suit, plaintiffs Tejrao Genuji Jadhav and Kuldeep Tejrao Jadhav sought appointment of a court commissioner to identify disputed agricultural property in Gut No. 21 at Phulambri and conduct spot verification. The defendants contested, arguing the plaintiffs lacked rights to the property and were improperly attempting to collect evidence through the commissioner. The Joint Civil Judge rejected the application, finding that court commissioners cannot be appointed merely to gather evidence for parties—their use is limited to specific purposes like determining property values or damages under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC. The application was dismissed with costs of Rs. 200/-. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court , Phulambri All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case