Krushna Kallappa Koli vs Aannappa Dhulappa Koli Advocate - S. S. Mane — 51/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 06th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO180001902022
Next Hearing
06th July 2026
Filing Number
79/2022
Filing Date
07-03-2022
Registration No
51/2022
Registration Date
11-03-2022
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Kurundwad
Judge
3-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Krushna Kallappa Koli
Adv. A. D. Kallannawar
Jaypal Nilappa Koli
Pradipkumar Maruti Koli
Tanaji Shamrao Koli
Respondent(s)
Aannappa Dhulappa Koli Advocate - S. S. Mane
Dattatray Dhulappa Koli
Shivaji Dhulappa Koli
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-06-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 04-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 20-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 30-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 16-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 51/2022 - Krishna Koli v. Aannappa Koli The Civil Judge rejected the defendants' application to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit for perpetual injunction. Though the defendants argued the civil court lacked jurisdiction over tenancy disputes under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, the court held it retained jurisdiction to decide possession and obstruction issues. The court noted that any disputed tenancy rights could be referred to revenue authorities after issues are framed, allowing the suit to proceed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 51/2022 - Krishna Koli v. Aannappa Koli The Civil Judge rejected the defendants' application to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit for perpetual injunction. Though the defendants argued the civil court lacked jurisdiction over tenancy disputes under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, the court held it retained jurisdiction to decide possession and obstruction issues. The court noted that any disputed tenancy rights could be referred to revenue authorities after issues are framed, allowing the suit to proceed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts