Balkishan Shankarlal Tapde vs Karnamurti Gangadhar Salve — 175/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section cpc. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Ready. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHBI060010882023

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

Next Hearing

10th June 2026

Filing Number

702/2023

Filing Date

03-05-2023

Registration No

175/2023

Registration Date

04-05-2023

Court

Civil Court Junior Division ,Ambajaogai

Judge

1-IInd Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Ambajogai.

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section cpc

Petitioner(s)

Balkishan Shankarlal Tapde

Adv. Halkanche G.C.

Ashok Gopikishan Tapde

Suresh Gangabhishan Tapdiya

Respondent(s)

Karnamurti Gangadhar Salve

Hearing History

Judge: 1-IInd Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Ambajogai.

07-04-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

12-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

04-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

08-01-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

25-11-2025

Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

Interim Orders

31-07-2023
Order on T.I.

Summary The court dismissed the petitioner's plea (Order No. 5, dated 31/07/2023). The petitioner challenged a previous order that had granted possession of 40 acres of land to defendants (Plaintiff No. 1 and Vishnudas Tapde) based on a 1971 sale deed, arguing improper procedures and unauthorized transfer. However, the court found that the land sale deed was valid, the defendants had legitimate ownership and possession rights, and the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the prior judgment. The court upheld the earlier order and dismissed the present petition with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court dismissed the petitioner's plea (Order No. 5, dated 31/07/2023). The petitioner challenged a previous order that had granted possession of 40 acres of land to defendants (Plaintiff No. 1 and Vishnudas Tapde) based on a 1971 sale deed, arguing improper procedures and unauthorized transfer. However, the court found that the land sale deed was valid, the defendants had legitimate ownership and possession rights, and the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the prior judgment. The court upheld the earlier order and dismissed the present petition with no costs awarded. 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 Court Junior Division ,Ambajaogai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case