Dattatraya Bhau Gurav vs Sarpanch Grampanchayat Pal Advocate - M. P. Patil — 1500043/2010
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 39. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO120001422010
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
Filing Number
1500043/2010
Filing Date
05-04-2010
Registration No
1500043/2010
Registration Date
07-04-2010
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Gargoti
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.M.F.C.Gargoti
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dattatraya Bhau Gurav
Adv. Anandrao M. Patil
Respondent(s)
Sarpanch Grampanchayat Pal Advocate - M. P. Patil
Gramsevak G.P. Pal
Adv. K. T. Patil
Ramchandra Appa Gurav
Adv. K. T. Patil
Dinkar Shankar Gurav(Legal Heir) 4.
suman dinkar gurav
Adv. K. T. Patil4.
prakash dinkar gurav
Adv. K. T. Patil4.
latatai tanaji gurav
Adv. K. T. Patil4.
ravindar dinkar gurav
Adv. K. T. Patil
Dasharath Shankar Gurav(Legal Heir)
Adv. K. T. Patil
ravindar dinkar gurav
Adv. K. T. Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.M.F.C.Gargoti
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 03-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 26-11-2025 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 1500043/2010 Outcome: Both petitions (Nos. 105 and 108) were partially allowed. The court ordered that marks/signatures be affixed to documents numbered 3, 82, 87, and 107, excluding only the highlighted/shaded copies of those documents. Other documents listed in petitions 105 and 108 were permitted to receive marks/signatures. The court held that documents must be proven according to the Indian Evidence Act, and that merely marking documents does not automatically establish their authenticity. The decision cited precedent establishing that document authentication requires proper evidentiary procedures rather than administrative marking alone. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 1500043/2010 Outcome: Both petitions (Nos. 105 and 108) were partially allowed. The court ordered that marks/signatures be affixed to documents numbered 3, 82, 87, and 107, excluding only the highlighted/shaded copies of those documents. Other documents listed in petitions 105 and 108 were permitted to receive marks/signatures. The court held that documents must be proven according to the Indian Evidence Act, and that merely marking documents does not automatically establish their authenticity. The decision cited precedent establishing that document authentication requires proper evidentiary procedures rather than administrative marking alone. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts