Deoram Sadu Pawar vs Govinda Ananda Barve Advocate - Sonawane Deep N — 75/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Declaration,Perpetual,Injunction,Mandatory,Prohibitory. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHNS180014232021
Next Hearing
30th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
111/2021
Filing Date
26-08-2021
Registration No
75/2021
Registration Date
26-08-2021
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Kalwan
Judge
2-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Deoram Sadu Pawar
Adv. Lokhande Pradeep B.
Respondent(s)
Govinda Ananda Barve Advocate - Sonawane Deep N
Dondiram Rambhau Barve
Adv. Sonawane Deep N
Hari Rambhau Barve
Adv. Sonawane Deep N
Prabhad Rambhau Barve
Adv. Jadhav Ganesh K.,Jadhav Ganesh K.
Sharad Parbhat Barve
Adv. Jadhav Ganesh K.
Sanjay Parbat Barve
Adv. Jadhav Ganesh K.
Deepak Parbat Barve
Adv. Jadhav Ganesh K.
Kalpana Sanjay Barve
Adv. Jadhav Ganesh K.
Manisha Deepak Barve
Adv. Jadhav Ganesh K.
Kalu Sadu Pawar
Adv. Lokhande Pradeep B.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 10-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 13-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 25-11-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 23-09-2025 | Reply/Say |
Interim Orders
Summary: The defendants' application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected. The court found that the suit is not barred by Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act or Section 26 of the Mamlatdar Court Act, as the plaintiff's claim pertains to challenging revenue orders and removing encroachments—matters within the civil court's jurisdiction. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The defendants' application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected. The court found that the suit is not barred by Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act or Section 26 of the Mamlatdar Court Act, as the plaintiff's claim pertains to challenging revenue orders and removing encroachments—matters within the civil court's jurisdiction. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts