Murlidhar Narayandas Mandhane vs Vyankati Janardan Shinde Advocate - Deshmukh V.V. — 900088/2012
Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED / REJECTED OTHERWISE on 17th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHBI080000882012
Filing Number
900088/2012
Filing Date
21-02-2012
Registration No
900088/2012
Registration Date
22-02-2012
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Majalgaon
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, MAJALGAON
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED / REJECTED OTHERWISE
Petitioner(s)
Murlidhar Narayandas Mandhane
Adv. G.M.Gajmal
Respondent(s)
Vyankati Janardan Shinde Advocate - Deshmukh V.V.
Mahadu Surybhan Satpute
Sadhu Surybhan Satpute
Mandodharibai Kisan Pawar
shaikh Jilani Shaikh Rabbani
Adv. Deshmukh V.V.
Shaikh Shoukat Shaikh Rabbani
Shaikh Bashamiya Shaikh Rabbani
Shaikh Jamil Shaikh Jilani
Abdul Hakim Abdul Raheman
Abdul Tayyab Abdul Raheman
Abdul Salim Abdul Raheman
Govindlal Kanhayya Mandhane
Deputy Supeintendent
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, MAJALGAON
Disposed
Dismissal Order
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-04-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 28-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of land in village Patrud, Beed district, under Order-IX, Rule-3 of the CPC, 1908. The dismissal was ordered due to the plaintiff's inaction for over 14 years—the case remained part-heard with pending compliance of court orders, no effective steps were taken, and no one appeared for the plaintiff on the final hearing date. The court found the plaintiff had lost interest in proceeding with the matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of land in village Patrud, Beed district, under Order-IX, Rule-3 of the CPC, 1908. The dismissal was ordered due to the plaintiff's inaction for over 14 years—the case remained part-heard with pending compliance of court orders, no effective steps were taken, and no one appeared for the plaintiff on the final hearing date. The court found the plaintiff had lost interest in proceeding with the matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts