Hoorunnissa Begam vs Venubai Salve — 1/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
Reg Dkst - Regular Execution Petition
CNR: MHAU130001232018
Next Hearing
20th June 2026
Filing Number
78/2018
Filing Date
09-07-2018
Registration No
1/2018
Registration Date
09-07-2018
Court
Corporation Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE S.D., CORPORATION COURT, AURANGABAD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Hoorunnissa Begam
Adv. Shaikh Razzak R.
Mujahed Ali S/o Syed Turab Ali
Shaukat Ali S/o Syed Turab Ali
Asif Ali S/o Syed Turab Ali
Respondent(s)
Venubai Salve
Saibai W/o Dhondiram Salve
Dhondiram Salve
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE S.D., CORPORATION COURT, AURANGABAD
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 12-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 16-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 29-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 20-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Hoorunnissa Begam v. Venubai Salve (1/2018) The defendant sought direction to compel J.D. No.4 corporation to produce demolition documents and panchnama related to encroachment removal on public road. The court rejected the application, finding that J.D. No.4 corporation was not bound by the original 1988 decree (which only directed J.D. Nos. 1-3 to demolish structures) and lawfully removed the structures during road widening. The court held the defendant must obtain certified copies directly from J.D. No.4 corporation's office. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Hoorunnissa Begam v. Venubai Salve (1/2018) The defendant sought direction to compel J.D. No.4 corporation to produce demolition documents and panchnama related to encroachment removal on public road. The court rejected the application, finding that J.D. No.4 corporation was not bound by the original 1988 decree (which only directed J.D. Nos. 1-3 to demolish structures) and lawfully removed the structures during road widening. The court held the defendant must obtain certified copies directly from J.D. No.4 corporation's office. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts