Baburao Ganapati Patil vs Prakash Appaso Patil Advocate - G. T. Thakur — 84/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,37,38. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 08th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO120003932021
Next Hearing
08th July 2026
Filing Number
139/2021
Filing Date
28-07-2021
Registration No
84/2021
Registration Date
04-08-2021
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Gargoti
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.M.F.C.Gargoti
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Baburao Ganapati Patil
Adv. S. D. Bhosale
Respondent(s)
Prakash Appaso Patil Advocate - G. T. Thakur
Anandrao Appaso Patil
Narsing Mahadev Patil
Sambhaji Mahadev Patil
Nanasaheb Ganapati Patil
Pandurang Narayan Patil
Dagadu Shankar Patil(Legal Heir)
Mohan Sakharam Mengane
Adv. M. P. Patil
Prakash Sakharam Mengane
Adv. M. P. Patil
Sanjay Sakharam Mengane
Dinkar Nagu Mengane
Rajendra Shmrao Ingale
Dilip Tukaram Mengane
Adv. M. P. Patil
Baburao Govind Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.M.F.C.Gargoti
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 02-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 10-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 02-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 12-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The application (Exh.55) was allowed, permitting Defendant No.10 to file a written statement despite the previous "No WS" order being set aside. Defendant No.10 was imposed costs of Rs.400 to compensate the plaintiff for the delay. The civil suit seeking mandatory injunction, declaration, and perpetual injunction will now proceed on merits with both parties' substantial rights to be decided. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The application (Exh.55) was allowed, permitting Defendant No.10 to file a written statement despite the previous "No WS" order being set aside. Defendant No.10 was imposed costs of Rs.400 to compensate the plaintiff for the delay. The civil suit seeking mandatory injunction, declaration, and perpetual injunction will now proceed on merits with both parties' substantial rights to be decided. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts