Shri. Dayanand Ramchandra Thorvat vs Shri. Ganesh Balasaheb Sadakale etc.1 Advocate - Babar Rajendra Pandurang — 74/2017
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 37,38. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 15th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSN090006172017
Next Hearing
15th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
173/2017
Filing Date
12-06-2017
Registration No
74/2017
Registration Date
14-06-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division,Tasgaon
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Tasgaon
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shri. Dayanand Ramchandra Thorvat
Adv. Gosavi Chintamani Mahadev
Respondent(s)
Shri. Ganesh Balasaheb Sadakale etc.1 Advocate - Babar Rajendra Pandurang
Shri. Balasaheb Dnyanu Sdakale
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Tasgaon
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 24-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 15-09-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 13-06-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary This is a civil land dispute case (Suit No. 74/2017) from a Tasgaon court decided on October 11, 2017. The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition finding that the defendants validly obtained possession of the disputed land (Plot No. 31, comprising 1/12 and 8/12 shares) through a registered agreement dated 06.09.2008 with the plaintiff's brother, and therefore the plaintiff failed to establish a valid claim. The court also ordered the plaintiff to bear the litigation costs, as the balance of justice was not in the plaintiff's favor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary This is a civil land dispute case (Suit No. 74/2017) from a Tasgaon court decided on October 11, 2017. The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition finding that the defendants validly obtained possession of the disputed land (Plot No. 31, comprising 1/12 and 8/12 shares) through a registered agreement dated 06.09.2008 with the plaintiff's brother, and therefore the plaintiff failed to establish a valid claim. The court also ordered the plaintiff to bear the litigation costs, as the balance of justice was not in the plaintiff's favor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts