Umesh Shankar Ramane etc.2 vs Shankar Narayan Ramane etc.10 Advocate - Chavan Nilesh Kesari — 30/2017
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHRT090002952017
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
46/2017
Filing Date
05-08-2017
Registration No
30/2017
Registration Date
05-08-2017
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division , Lanja
Judge
1-Civil JudgeJ.D. J.M.F.C LANJA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Umesh Shankar Ramane etc.2
Adv. Dhamnaskar Shardul Shashikant
Rupesh Shankar Ramane
Adv. Dhamanskar Shardul S.
Respondent(s)
Shankar Narayan Ramane etc.10 Advocate - Chavan Nilesh Kesari
Parvti Ratnu Divale
Adv. Gurav Prashant Janu
Nirmala Deu Pankar
Adv. Gurav Prashant Janu
Draoupadi Kashiram Divale
Adv. Gurav Prashant Janu
Laxman Sadashiv Ramane
Soma Sadashiv Ramane
Devaji Sadashiv Ramane
Pandurang Ramchandra Ramane
Ganpat Ramchandra Ramane
Shrikant Ramchandra Ramane
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil JudgeJ.D. J.M.F.C LANJA
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 17-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 27-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 16-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No: RCS 30/2017 | Court: Civil & Criminal Court, Lanja, Ratnagiri | Date: 20/1/2020 The petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 33 was allowed and the earlier order was set aside. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case regarding alleged removal of crops and property from the disputed land, and consequently dismissed questions 1-3 of the disputed issues. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No: RCS 30/2017 | Court: Civil & Criminal Court, Lanja, Ratnagiri | Date: 20/1/2020 The petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 33 was allowed and the earlier order was set aside. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case regarding alleged removal of crops and property from the disputed land, and consequently dismissed questions 1-3 of the disputed issues. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts