Hari Thombare etc 2 vs Achutrao Doiphode Advocate - Dharurkar K.B. — 700105/2007
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 3. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING on 18th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO070001962007
Filing Number
700105/2007
Filing Date
26-02-2007
Registration No
700105/2007
Registration Date
27-02-2007
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur
Judge
1-JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. PANDHARPUR
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Hari Thombare etc 2
Adv. Shirke Sukeshani V
Vasant Thombre
Respondent(s)
Achutrao Doiphode Advocate - Dharurkar K.B.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. PANDHARPUR
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 13-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 29-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court rejected the plaintiffs' suit seeking removal of an alleged encroachment and recovery of possession of agricultural land in Kasegaon. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant had constructed a tin-shed on their property; the court noted the measurement maps were incomplete and unreliable, the tin-shed had existed for many years (supporting the defendant's claim it predated the suit), and the plaintiffs provided no direct evidence of encroachment. Consequently, the plaintiffs were also denied claims for vacant possession and mesne profits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court rejected the plaintiffs' suit seeking removal of an alleged encroachment and recovery of possession of agricultural land in Kasegaon. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant had constructed a tin-shed on their property; the court noted the measurement maps were incomplete and unreliable, the tin-shed had existed for many years (supporting the defendant's claim it predated the suit), and the plaintiffs provided no direct evidence of encroachment. Consequently, the plaintiffs were also denied claims for vacant possession and mesne profits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts