Gopal Bhikaji Bhaip etc. 3 vs Gramsevak, Grampanchayat Kas etc. 5 Advocate - PANDURKAR SUBHASH GOPAL — 4/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 39. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSI060000112022
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
Filing Number
5/2022
Filing Date
05-01-2022
Registration No
4/2022
Registration Date
05-01-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Sawantwadi
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sawantwadi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gopal Bhikaji Bhaip etc. 3
Adv. KESARKAR ANIL SHANTARAM
Ganesh Yashwant Bhaip
Sushila Subhash Naik
Respondent(s)
Gramsevak, Grampanchayat Kas etc. 5 Advocate - PANDURKAR SUBHASH GOPAL
Sarpanch, Grampanchayat Kas
Manohar Yashwant Bhaip
Sanjana Sandip Sawant
Rukmini Govind Naik
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sawantwadi
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 11-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 08-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 05-11-2025 | Order on Exh |
| 15-10-2025 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case: Gopal v. Gramsevak Gram Panchayat (Regular Civil Suit No. 4/2022), Santavadi Court Outcome: The petition filed by defendants was rejected/dismissed. The court refused to appoint a Court Commissioner to verify the road existence as requested by the defendants. The court found that the defendants failed to provide adequate documentary evidence or proper justification for their claims regarding a 500-meter road with 3-meter width allegedly passing through the plaintiff's land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: Gopal v. Gramsevak Gram Panchayat (Regular Civil Suit No. 4/2022), Santavadi Court Outcome: The petition filed by defendants was rejected/dismissed. The court refused to appoint a Court Commissioner to verify the road existence as requested by the defendants. The court found that the defendants failed to provide adequate documentary evidence or proper justification for their claims regarding a 500-meter road with 3-meter width allegedly passing through the plaintiff's land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts