Vinayak Madhukar Acharya vs Vilas Yashwant Naik — 351/2024

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.

Argument on Exh.____Unready Next hearing 16-Jun-2026

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO050050612024

e-Filing Number

28-08-2024

Filing Number

1082/2024

Filing Date

28-Aug-2024

Registration No

351/2024

Registration Date

30-Aug-2024

Court

Civil Court Senior Division , Ichalkaranji

Judge

7-4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 38

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vinayak Madhukar Acharya

    Adv. R S Sutar

  2. 2.Rajeshree Vinayak Acharya

    Adv. R S Sutar

  3. 3.Vishwas Madhukar Acharya

    Adv. R S Sutar

  4. 4.Savitri Vishwas Acharya

    Adv. R S Sutar

  5. 5.Sunil Mohan Kangle

    Adv. R S Sutar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vilas Yashwant Naik

Case History

  1. 16-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 29-Apr-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: RCS No. 351/2024 Outcome: Application rejected; case to proceed further. Plaintiffs filed a perpetual injunction suit against defendant Vilas Yashwant Naik regarding disputed property and requested appointment of a Court Commissioner (Taluka Inspector of Land Record) to measure and verify the suit property boundaries. The court rejected this application, holding that since the suit seeks perpetual injunction—not removal of encroachment or boundary determination—appointing a commissioner to investigate possession would amount to improper evidence collection. Following Bombay High Court precedent, the court ruled commissioners cannot be appointed for evidentiary purposes under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, and plaintiffs must prove their case independently under the Indian Evidence Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  5. 13-Feb-2026

    Order on Exh

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  6. 30-Jan-2026

    Order on Exh

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  7. 11-Dec-2025

    Order on Exh

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  8. 19-Nov-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  9. 09-Oct-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  10. 09-Sep-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  11. 24-Jul-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  12. 17-Jun-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  13. 11-Apr-2025

    Order on Exh

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  14. 13-Mar-2025

    Order on Exh

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  15. 13-Feb-2025

    Order on Exh

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  16. 08-Jan-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  17. 07-Dec-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  18. 23-Oct-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  19. 04-Oct-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  20. 18-Sep-2024

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    5th Jt.Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Ichalkaranji

  21. 09-Sep-2024

    Awaiting Summons

    5th Jt.Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Ichalkaranji

  22. 02-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 28-Aug-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 351/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS No. 351/2024 Outcome: Application rejected; case to proceed further. Plaintiffs filed a perpetual injunction suit against defendant Vilas Yashwant Naik regarding disputed property and requested appointment of a Court Commissioner (Taluka Inspector of Land Record) to measure and verify the suit property boundaries. The court rejected this application, holding that since the suit seeks perpetual injunction—not removal of encroachment or boundary determination—appointing a commissioner to investigate possession would amount to improper evidence collection. Following Bombay High Court precedent, the court ruled commissioners cannot be appointed for evidentiary purposes under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, and plaintiffs must prove their case independently under the Indian Evidence Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case