Govinda Lula Shende vs Sarpancha Gram Panchayat Korambhi - 01 Advocate - Awachate G.D. — 40/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHGO060005762021
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
Filing Number
76/2021
Filing Date
01-07-2021
Registration No
40/2021
Registration Date
01-07-2021
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Arjunimor
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. AND J.M.F.C. ARJUNIMOR.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govinda Lula Shende
Adv. Kesalkar R. W.
Respondent(s)
Sarpancha Gram Panchayat Korambhi - 01 Advocate - Awachate G.D.
Secretory of Gram Panchayat Korambhi
Adv. Awachate G.D.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. AND J.M.F.C. ARJUNIMOR.
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 11-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 11-02-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 07-01-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 03-12-2025 | Defence Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary The Civil Judge rejected the defendants' application for joint measurement of the disputed land parcels (Gat No. 114 and 115) at Mauza Korambhi, Gondia. The court found that the plaintiff's ownership and possession of Gat No. 114 was undisputed, there was no boundary dispute, and the defendants filed the application merely to collect evidence and delay the suit. The court relied on Bombay High Court precedent that court commissioners should be appointed after oral evidence, not for evidence collection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Civil Judge rejected the defendants' application for joint measurement of the disputed land parcels (Gat No. 114 and 115) at Mauza Korambhi, Gondia. The court found that the plaintiff's ownership and possession of Gat No. 114 was undisputed, there was no boundary dispute, and the defendants filed the application merely to collect evidence and delay the suit. The court relied on Bombay High Court precedent that court commissioners should be appointed after oral evidence, not for evidence collection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts