Dastagir Sharfuddin Sande vs Mohan Dhondiram Jagdale Advocate - Lale Vinayak Govind — 1300046/2008
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section InjenctionandPossession. Status: Citation. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSN110003002008
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
1300090/2008
Filing Date
30-07-2008
Registration No
1300046/2008
Registration Date
30-07-2008
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Atpadi
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. and J.M.F.C., Atpadi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dastagir Sharfuddin Sande
Adv. Uthale Ramaji Anant
Chandbi Mard Shafuddin Sande
Adv. Uthale Ramaji Anant
Respondent(s)
Mohan Dhondiram Jagdale Advocate - Lale Vinayak Govind
Salamati Mard Nabilal Mulani
Pakija Mard Samir Mulani
Adv. Teli Manoj Ashok
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. and J.M.F.C., Atpadi
Citation
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Citation |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 28-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Reg. Civil Suit No. 46/2008 (Dastagir Sande v. Mohan Jagdale), the court's application for document exhibition was partly allowed. The court permitted exhibits 206/1 to 206/3 (City Survey Register extracts and assessment lists), 225/2 (postal acknowledgment), and 108/1 (tax receipt) to be exhibited as valid public documents. However, the remaining documents—including APMC applications, inward-outward registers, BDO proceedings, and certain other records—were rejected as they required proper witness testimony for admissibility under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Reg. Civil Suit No. 46/2008 (Dastagir Sande v. Mohan Jagdale), the court's application for document exhibition was partly allowed. The court permitted exhibits 206/1 to 206/3 (City Survey Register extracts and assessment lists), 225/2 (postal acknowledgment), and 108/1 (tax receipt) to be exhibited as valid public documents. However, the remaining documents—including APMC applications, inward-outward registers, BDO proceedings, and certain other records—were rejected as they required proper witness testimony for admissibility under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts