Suvrna Amrut Paawar vs Nobody — 4/2026

Case under Bombay Regulation Act,1827 Section 8 rule 8. Disposed: Uncontested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 04th April 2026.

Case disposed

Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application

CNR: MHKO100001192026

e-Filing Number

29-01-2026

Filing Number

71/2026

Filing Date

29-Jan-2026

Registration No

4/2026

Registration Date

30-Jan-2026

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Gadhinglaj

Judge

1-3rd Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C. Gadhinglaj

Decision Date

04-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bombay Regulation Act,1827 Section 8 rule 8

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Suvrna Amrut Paawar

    Adv. R. M. Kole

  2. 2.Anuj Amrut Pawar

    Adv. R. M. Kole

  3. 3.Shewanta Laxman Pawar

    Adv. R. M. Kole

  4. 4.Laxman Balu Pawar

    Adv. R. M. Kole

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Nobody

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Apr-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court partly allowed the application for heirship certificate filed by three applicants under the Bombay Regulation Act, 1827. The court determined that applicants 1-3 (wife, son, and mother of the deceased Amrut Laxman Pawar) qualify as Class-I heirs and are entitled to the certificate, while applicant 4 (the father), being a Class-II heir, was denied the certificate. The heirship certificate was issued to the three eligible applicants upon payment of requisite court fees. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C. Gadhinglaj

  4. 20-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    3rd Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C. Gadhinglaj

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    3rd Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C. Gadhinglaj

  6. 30-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 29-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court partly allowed the application for heirship certificate filed by three applicants under the Bombay Regulation Act, 1827. The court determined that applicants 1-3 (wife, son, and mother of the deceased Amrut Laxman Pawar) qualify as Class-I heirs and are entitled to the certificate, while applicant 4 (the father), being a Class-II heir, was denied the certificate. The heirship certificate was issued to the three eligible applicants upon payment of requisite court fees. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case