Anjanabai Nathu Patole vs Indubai Mahadu Pagar Advocate - Shewale Bhaurao S — 44/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 25th March 2026.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHNS070014792022
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
697/2022
Filing Date
17-08-2022
Registration No
44/2022
Registration Date
17-08-2022
Court
District Court-1 ,Malegaon
Judge
3-District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anjanabai Nathu Patole
Adv. Ahire Pravin A
Respondent(s)
Indubai Mahadu Pagar Advocate - Shewale Bhaurao S
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 24-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 13-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 06-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The District Court at Malegaon allowed the appellant's appeal and set aside the lower court's dismissal of her encroachment removal suit. The court found that the trial court failed to properly adjudicate the critical issue of whether the alleged 16-16 rupees (R) encroached area belonged to the appellant's land, and noted conflicting measurement reports (by Court Commissioner and District Inspector of Land Records). The suit was remanded for retrial, permitting the appellant to amend her plaint based on correct measurements and allowing both parties to present fresh evidence before the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District Court at Malegaon allowed the appellant's appeal and set aside the lower court's dismissal of her encroachment removal suit. The court found that the trial court failed to properly adjudicate the critical issue of whether the alleged 16-16 rupees (R) encroached area belonged to the appellant's land, and noted conflicting measurement reports (by Court Commissioner and District Inspector of Land Records). The suit was remanded for retrial, permitting the appellant to amend her plaint based on correct measurements and allowing both parties to present fresh evidence before the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts