Pandurang Shivaji Rawankar (Dead) Through LRs(Legal Heir) vs Manjurabai Digambar Rawankar (Dead) Through LRs Advocate - Phirke MB — 6/2020

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/s 96 , O 41 R 1. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.

R.C.A. - Civil Appeal

CNR: MHBU040002372020

Arguments

Next Hearing

16th June 2026

Filing Number

112/2020

Filing Date

18-02-2020

Registration No

6/2020

Registration Date

18-02-2020

Court

District and Session Court ,khamgaon

Judge

3-Adhoc DJ - 2 and A.S.J., Khamgaon

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section U/s 96 , O 41 R 1

Petitioner(s)

Pandurang Shivaji Rawankar (Dead) Through LRs(Legal Heir)

Adv. Takwale SN1.

Arun Ananta Pawar

Respondent(s)

Manjurabai Digambar Rawankar (Dead) Through LRs Advocate - Phirke MB

Kishor Harichandra Tikar

Adv. Mr. M.B.Phirke

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Adhoc DJ - 2 and A.S.J., Khamgaon

23-04-2026

Arguments

01-04-2026

Arguments

11-03-2026

Arguments

16-02-2026

Arguments

12-01-2026

Arguments

Interim Orders

05-02-2025
Order on Exhibit

Summary: The appellants' application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to examine the TILR (Talati) of Khamgaon as additional evidence has been rejected. The court found that the crucial document (Namuna No. A) was already admitted as documentary evidence during trial and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any necessity for examining the witness, and did not fall within the permitted categories for introducing additional evidence in appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The appellants' application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to examine the TILR (Talati) of Khamgaon as additional evidence has been rejected. The court found that the crucial document (Namuna No. A) was already admitted as documentary evidence during trial and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any necessity for examining the witness, and did not fall within the permitted categories for introducing additional evidence in appeal. 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

District and Session Court ,khamgaon All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case