Laxman Gopalrao Biradar vs Dhondiba Ramrao Biradar and others 2 Advocate - Patil Sandip B — 3/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,r1. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA160000032020
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
3/2020
Filing Date
03-01-2020
Registration No
3/2020
Registration Date
03-01-2020
Court
Civil Court Junior Division, Deoni
Judge
1-CJJD and JMFC Deoni
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Laxman Gopalrao Biradar
Adv. Bhosale Ashok K
Respondent(s)
Dhondiba Ramrao Biradar and others 2 Advocate - Patil Sandip B
Ramrao Gopalrao Biradar(Legal Heir)
Adv. Kudte Bandappa S
Gayabai Ramrao Biradar
Adv. Kudte Bandappa S
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CJJD and JMFC Deoni
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 06-04-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 17-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
| 21-01-2026 | Defence Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary - RCS No. 03/2020 (Laxman v. Dhondiba & Ors.) The court allowed the plaintiff's application to exhibit certified copies of Toch Map, Akhiv Patrika, Index-C, and orders from the District Superintendent of Land Record Latur in this perpetual injunction suit. The court held that these documents constitute public documents with presumptive value under the Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam and are admissible as secondary evidence without requiring oral testimony, as the defendants failed to rebut their authenticity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary - RCS No. 03/2020 (Laxman v. Dhondiba & Ors.) The court allowed the plaintiff's application to exhibit certified copies of Toch Map, Akhiv Patrika, Index-C, and orders from the District Superintendent of Land Record Latur in this perpetual injunction suit. The court held that these documents constitute public documents with presumptive value under the Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam and are admissible as secondary evidence without requiring oral testimony, as the defendants failed to rebut their authenticity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts