Ambadas Tulshiram Pachange. vs Balaji @ Balasaheb Sansthan, Wankhed Through Ratanlal Sukhdev Chandak. — 62/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 08th July 2026.

Issues Next hearing 08-Jul-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit

CNR: MHBU180010022024

Filing Number

227/2024

Filing Date

24-Oct-2024

Registration No

62/2024

Registration Date

24-Oct-2024

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Sangrampur

Judge

1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

Last updated 20-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ambadas Tulshiram Pachange.

    Adv. Wankhade VP

  2. 2.Rameshwari Devidas Pachange.

  3. 3.Satyabhama Subhash Hande.

  4. 4.Sharda Raanjaji Gite.

  5. 5.Sangita Digambar Wairagade.

  6. 6.Gokula Amol Pendhari.

  7. 7.Shyamkarna Santosh Zatole.

  8. 8.Goukarna Tulshiram Pachange.

  9. 9.Rukma Tulshiram Pachange.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Balaji @ Balasaheb Sansthan, Wankhed Through Ratanlal Sukhdev Chandak.

Case History

  1. 08-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 29-Apr-2026

    Issues

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Issues

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  4. 10-Feb-2026

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  5. 06-Jan-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary: The Civil Judge rejected the defendant's application to dismiss the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The court found that while the suit involved agricultural land, the plaintiffs sought only a perpetual injunction to restrain interference with their possession—not a declaration of tenancy rights—and therefore Section 124 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 did not bar the suit. The suit is permitted to proceed further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 06-Jan-2026

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  7. 03-Dec-2025

    Order on Exh

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  8. 07-Nov-2025

    Order on Exh

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  9. 20-Sep-2025

    Order on Exh

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  10. 08-Aug-2025

    Order on Exh

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  11. 30-Jun-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  12. 19-Jun-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  13. 23-Apr-2025

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  14. 07-Mar-2025

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  15. 25-Feb-2025

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  16. 20-Dec-2024

    Written Statement

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  17. 27-Nov-2024

    Awaiting Notice

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC

  18. 25-Oct-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  19. 24-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 62/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Civil Judge rejected the defendant's application to dismiss the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The court found that while the suit involved agricultural land, the plaintiffs sought only a perpetual injunction to restrain interference with their possession—not a declaration of tenancy rights—and therefore Section 124 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 did not bar the suit. The suit is permitted to proceed further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case