Shri.Vasant Dinkar Dhokre etc. 5 vs Grampanchayat Adoli,Dublewadi thr. Sarpanch/Gramsevak — 1600040/2017
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 04th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO190001372017
Next Hearing
04th July 2026
Filing Number
1600065/2017
Filing Date
21-03-2017
Registration No
1600040/2017
Registration Date
23-03-2017
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari
Judge
5-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shri.Vasant Dinkar Dhokre etc. 5
Adv. Kiran G. patil
Shri.Pandit Dinkar Dhokre
Adv. K. G. Patil
Shri.Pandurang Dinkar Dhokre
Adv. K. G. Patil
Shri.Ashok Dinkar Dhokre
Adv. K. G. Patil
Shri.Dinkar Dhaku Dhokre
Adv. K. G. Patil
Respondent(s)
Grampanchayat Adoli,Dublewadi thr. Sarpanch/Gramsevak
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 18-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 22-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 08-01-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS 40/2017 Outcome: Petition allowed. The plaintiff was granted liberty to adduce secondary evidence within the parameters of the Indian Evidence Act (dated 06/02/2020). Key Facts: The plaintiff sought permission to introduce secondary evidence for three documents: a village panchayat resolution and two government notices. The originals were held by the defendant (Gram Panchayat) and Tahasildar office respectively, and despite repeated requests, were not produced. When the plaintiff inquired with the Tahasildar's office, these documents were not found in their records. Court's Decision: Citing the Indian Evidence Act provisions and Bombay High Court precedent, the court held that parties are at liberty to lead secondary evidence, provided they prove the existence and execution of original documents and fulfill conditions under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS 40/2017 Outcome: Petition allowed. The plaintiff was granted liberty to adduce secondary evidence within the parameters of the Indian Evidence Act (dated 06/02/2020). Key Facts: The plaintiff sought permission to introduce secondary evidence for three documents: a village panchayat resolution and two government notices. The originals were held by the defendant (Gram Panchayat) and Tahasildar office respectively, and despite repeated requests, were not produced. When the plaintiff inquired with the Tahasildar's office, these documents were not found in their records. Court's Decision: Citing the Indian Evidence Act provisions and Bombay High Court precedent, the court held that parties are at liberty to lead secondary evidence, provided they prove the existence and execution of original documents and fulfill conditions under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts