Shri. Bandopant Maruti Kumbhar vs Shri. Pandurang Maruti Kumbhar etc. 10 Advocate - D. M. Potdar — 1600145/2016

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO190007072016

Evidence Part Heard

Next Hearing

23rd June 2026

Filing Number

160211/2016

Filing Date

11-11-2016

Registration No

1600145/2016

Registration Date

05-12-2016

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari

Judge

5-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34

Petitioner(s)

Shri. Bandopant Maruti Kumbhar

Adv. A. M. Patil

Respondent(s)

Shri. Pandurang Maruti Kumbhar etc. 10 Advocate - D. M. Potdar

Shri.Krushnat Maruti Kumbhar

Adv. B. P. Patil

Shri.Shankar Maruti Kumbhar

Adv. B. P. Patil

Shri.Babaji Bhau Kumbhar

Adv. B. P. Patil

Shri.Dinkar Bhau Kumbhar

Adv. B. P. Patil

Shri. Dhondiram Abaji Kumbhar

Adv. B. P. Patil

Shri.Nathaji Abaji Kumbhar

Adv. B. P. Patil

Shri.Dhanaji Babaji Kumbhar

Adv. B. P. Patil

Shri. Vitthal Shankar Kumbhar

Adv. B. P. Patil

Shri.Dagdu Sakharam Kumbhar

Adv. B. P. Patil

Hearing History

Judge: 5-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari

10-04-2026

Evidence Part Heard

10-03-2026

Evidence Part Heard

13-02-2026

Arguments

19-12-2025

Arguments

11-11-2025

Arguments

Interim Orders

10-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

Summary: In this ancestral property dispute (R.C.S. No. 145/2016), the court allowed Defendant No. 1's application to set aside the "no cross" orders passed against him, granting him an opportunity to adduce evidence and conduct cross-examination. However, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 2,500, finding that Defendant No. 1's prolonged absence since 2023 demonstrated inappropriate conduct, though natural justice principles warranted allowing him to present his case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In this ancestral property dispute (R.C.S. No. 145/2016), the court allowed Defendant No. 1's application to set aside the "no cross" orders passed against him, granting him an opportunity to adduce evidence and conduct cross-examination. However, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 2,500, finding that Defendant No. 1's prolonged absence since 2023 demonstrated inappropriate conduct, though natural justice principles warranted allowing him to present his case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case