Basavraj Virbhadra Dang vs Mallikarjun Basappa Herekar Advocate - D. D. Ajegekar — 1300098/2014
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 391/2. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO150003502014
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
1300098/2014
Filing Date
07-10-2014
Registration No
1300098/2014
Registration Date
13-10-2014
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Ajara
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Basavraj Virbhadra Dang
Adv. S. S. Nikam
Respondent(s)
Mallikarjun Basappa Herekar Advocate - D. D. Ajegekar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 04-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 21-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: In Civil Case 1300098/2014, the court dismissed the petition filed by Basavraj Virbhadra Dang against advocate Mallikarjun Basappa Herekar and D.D. Ajegekar. The court found that the document in question (dated 25.05.1996) concerning water and wall rights had a valuation exceeding Rs. 100, requiring proper stamp duty. The court upheld the objection to the document's admission as evidence due to insufficient stamping and confirmed that the petitioner failed to establish his case based on available witness testimony and documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: In Civil Case 1300098/2014, the court dismissed the petition filed by Basavraj Virbhadra Dang against advocate Mallikarjun Basappa Herekar and D.D. Ajegekar. The court found that the document in question (dated 25.05.1996) concerning water and wall rights had a valuation exceeding Rs. 100, requiring proper stamp duty. The court upheld the objection to the document's admission as evidence due to insufficient stamping and confirmed that the petitioner failed to establish his case based on available witness testimony and documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts