Housabai Knoynoba Tejam etc 2 vs Dnynoba Balku Tejam Advocate - S. R. Powar — 1300044/2008
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO150000442008
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1300044/2008
Filing Date
20-10-2008
Registration No
1300044/2008
Registration Date
20-10-2008
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Ajara
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Housabai Knoynoba Tejam etc 2
Adv. A. S. Farakate
Respondent(s)
Dnynoba Balku Tejam Advocate - S. R. Powar
Prakash Dnyanoba Tejam
Adv. A. S. Farakate
Gangubai Maruti Usankar
Kanchan Aie Gangubai Usankar
Shaila Aie Gangubai Usankar
Bebitai Aie Gangubai Usankar
Adv. S. R. Powar
Ranjana Aie Gangubai Usankar
Sunita Aie Gangubai Usankar
Sanjay Shripati Devekar
Shripati Soma Devekar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara
Evidence
Evidence
Awaiting Summons
Defence Evidence
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Evidence | |
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 06-04-2026 | Awaiting Summons | |
| 24-03-2026 | Defence Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
This is a civil court order from Maharashtra (Civil Case No. 287/2008, Ajara Court) dated April 21, 2026, concerning a water-sharing dispute between farmers regarding irrigation water distribution and sugarcane crop yields. The court accepted the cross-examination statement of Witness 7 (the defendant), rejected the cross-examinations of Defendants 9-10 due to counsel absence, and noted that Defendant 11 appeared in court but cross-examination could not be conducted due to counsel non-appearance, therefore no cross-examination order was passed for Defendant 11. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a civil court order from Maharashtra (Civil Case No. 287/2008, Ajara Court) dated April 21, 2026, concerning a water-sharing dispute between farmers regarding irrigation water distribution and sugarcane crop yields. The court accepted the cross-examination statement of Witness 7 (the defendant), rejected the cross-examinations of Defendants 9-10 due to counsel absence, and noted that Defendant 11 appeared in court but cross-examination could not be conducted due to counsel non-appearance, therefore no cross-examination order was passed for Defendant 11. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts