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
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
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
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 08-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Explore other courts