Babulal Fakira Pawar vs Pradip Chandmal Dungarwal Advocate - Chandratre Nitin p — 31/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Injunction. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 05th May 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHNS180006642018
Next Hearing
05th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
40/2018
Filing Date
08-06-2018
Registration No
31/2018
Registration Date
08-06-2018
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Kalwan
Judge
2-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Babulal Fakira Pawar
Adv. Aher Uttam H
Deoram Fakira Pawar
Adv. Aher Uttam H
Shivaji Fakira Pawar
Adv. Aher Uttam H
Nanaji Fakira Pawar
Adv. Aher Uttam H
Mirabai Ukha Pawar
Adv. Aher Uttam H
Sumanbai Deoram Barde
Adv. Aher Uttam H
Valu Laxman Pawar
Adv. Aher Uttam H
Respondent(s)
Pradip Chandmal Dungarwal Advocate - Chandratre Nitin p
Kishor Chandmal Dungarwal
Chanchala Dilip Sanghvi
Pramila Motilal Mutha
Nirmala Dhanraj Chhoriya
Ramkavarbai Chandmal Dungarwal
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 27-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 28-10-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 02-09-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition (Application No. 5, Case No. 31/2018) regarding disputed agricultural land in Maharashtra. The judgment, dated February 22, 2022, found that the plaintiff failed to establish clear ownership over the property and that the 1920 Land Revenue Act did not require government permission for the defendant's land transfer. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding historical possession and ruled that the application must be dismissed without any cost order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition (Application No. 5, Case No. 31/2018) regarding disputed agricultural land in Maharashtra. The judgment, dated February 22, 2022, found that the plaintiff failed to establish clear ownership over the property and that the 1920 Land Revenue Act did not require government permission for the defendant's land transfer. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding historical possession and ruled that the application must be dismissed without any cost order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts