Anjanabai Nathu Patole vs Jibhau Daga Pawar Advocate - Shewale Bhaurao S — 43/2022
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: MHNS070014802022
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
698/2022
Filing Date
17-08-2022
Registration No
43/2022
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)
Jibhau Daga Pawar Advocate - Shewale Bhaurao S
Popat Daga Pawar
Adv. Shewale Bhaurao S
Uttam Daga Pawar
Adv. Shewale Bhaurao S
Sahebrao Daga Pawar
Adv. Shewale Bhaurao S
Sumanbai Mansaram Chavhan
Adv. Shewale Bhaurao S
Bayjabai Ramdas Ahire
Adv. Shewale Bhaurao S
Kamal Gokul Sonawane
Adv. 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 appeal and set aside the trial court's dismissal of the encroachment removal suit. The court found that discrepancies existed between the plaintiff's pleaded encroachment area (33 R), the court-appointed surveyor's measurement (32-23 R), and the revenue office's re-measurement showing no encroachment, leaving the core issue unresolved. The court remanded the case for retrial under Order XLI Rule 23-A of the CPC, permitting the plaintiff to amend her plaint based on the survey report and allowing both parties to present fresh evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The District Court at Malegaon allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's dismissal of the encroachment removal suit. The court found that discrepancies existed between the plaintiff's pleaded encroachment area (33 R), the court-appointed surveyor's measurement (32-23 R), and the revenue office's re-measurement showing no encroachment, leaving the core issue unresolved. The court remanded the case for retrial under Order XLI Rule 23-A of the CPC, permitting the plaintiff to amend her plaint based on the survey report and allowing both parties to present fresh evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts