Chaya Madhukar Jagtap vs Hon. Collector, Solapur — 16/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 3439. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO060001932025
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
e-Filing Number
10-02-2025
Filing Number
196/2025
Filing Date
10-02-2025
Registration No
16/2025
Registration Date
10-02-2025
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Pandhurpur
Judge
3-2nd Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Pandharpur.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Chaya Madhukar Jagtap
Adv. Sujata Ravindra Kshirsagar
Respondent(s)
Hon. Collector, Solapur
Upvibhagiy Adhikari Mangalwedha
Tehsildar Mangalvedha
Mukhyadhikari Nagarparishad
Pushpanjali Nandkumar Shinde
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Pandharpur.
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 03-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 13-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 06-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 13-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 16/2025 The court rejected an application filed by Dattatraya Nana Mali seeking to be added as a defendant to the suit. Mali claimed his adjacent property (Gat No. 2365/2) would suffer irreparable loss from any court order regarding the suit property (survey No. 963). The court found that Mali failed to establish any legal right in the suit property or demonstrate he was a necessary party to the proceedings, which concerned the plaintiff's ownership and possession claim over Gat No. 2368 and an encroachment notice issued by the Tehsildar. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 16/2025 The court rejected an application filed by Dattatraya Nana Mali seeking to be added as a defendant to the suit. Mali claimed his adjacent property (Gat No. 2365/2) would suffer irreparable loss from any court order regarding the suit property (survey No. 963). The court found that Mali failed to establish any legal right in the suit property or demonstrate he was a necessary party to the proceedings, which concerned the plaintiff's ownership and possession claim over Gat No. 2368 and an encroachment notice issued by the Tehsildar. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts