Namdeo Vitthal Narvekar vs Collector, Kolhapur — 30/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38,39. Status: Formal Hearing. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO090000982025

Formal Hearing

Next Hearing

17th June 2026

e-Filing Number

14-02-2025

Filing Number

102/2025

Filing Date

14-02-2025

Registration No

30/2025

Registration Date

14-02-2025

Court

Civil Court Senior Division , Gadhinglaj

Judge

1-Civil Judge Senior Division Gadhinglaj

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34,38,39

Petitioner(s)

Namdeo Vitthal Narvekar

Adv. M. V. Patil

Respondent(s)

Collector, Kolhapur

2- District Mining Officer Kolhapur

3- Tashildar, Ajara

4- Suryakant Namdeo Narvekar

5- ISC Project Private Limited Pune through authorised reprensatative Dhananjay Dattatray Gavali

Adv. Rohan A. Patil

6- Mahesh Annaji Bhosale

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Gadhinglaj

06-05-2026

Formal Hearing

16-03-2026

Formal Hearing

07-02-2026

Formal Hearing

03-01-2026

Formal Hearing

16-12-2025

Formal Hearing

Interim Orders

24-03-2025
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 30/2025 Outcome: Defendant No.5's application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected. The court found that the plaintiff (Namdeo Vitthal Narvekar) has sufficient cause of action and locus standi to challenge a property transaction, claiming the property is held benami in the defendant's name. The court held that whether the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act applies requires detailed evidence and trial, not threshold determination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 30/2025 Outcome: Defendant No.5's application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected. The court found that the plaintiff (Namdeo Vitthal Narvekar) has sufficient cause of action and locus standi to challenge a property transaction, claiming the property is held benami in the defendant's name. The court held that whether the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act applies requires detailed evidence and trial, not threshold determination. 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

Civil Court Senior Division , Gadhinglaj All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case