Maruti Agavane vs Bhiva Pawar Advocate - Patil Sambhaji K — 180/2019

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Stayed by District Court. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHSO070002182019

Stayed by District Court

Next Hearing

10th June 2026

Filing Number

241/2019

Filing Date

15-04-2019

Registration No

180/2019

Registration Date

17-04-2019

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur

Judge

4-3rd JT. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. PANDHARPUR

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 38
IA/2/2022 Classification : Commission Request Section Maruti AgavaneBhiva Pawar

Petitioner(s)

Maruti Agavane

Adv. Shinde Ranjeet N

Respondent(s)

Bhiva Pawar Advocate - Patil Sambhaji K

Shankar Pawar

Arjun Pawar

Kaber Pawar

Madhukar Pawar

Hearing History

Judge: 4-3rd JT. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. PANDHARPUR

13-03-2026

Stayed by District Court

20-12-2025

Stayed by District Court

10-09-2025

Stayed by District Court

03-07-2025

Hearing

03-05-2025

Hearing

Interim Orders

05-12-2022
Order on Exhibit

Case 180/2019 Summary: Maruti v. Bhima and Others Maruti's application for court commissioner appointment to measure suit property (gat No.162) was rejected on 05.12.2022. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish grounds for local inspection under CPC Order 26 Rule 09, as the plaint alleged only fear of future encroachment rather than actual encroachment, contained no property identity dispute, and sought permanent injunction without claiming possession recovery or declaration of encroachment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case 180/2019 Summary: Maruti v. Bhima and Others Maruti's application for court commissioner appointment to measure suit property (gat No.162) was rejected on 05.12.2022. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish grounds for local inspection under CPC Order 26 Rule 09, as the plaint alleged only fear of future encroachment rather than actual encroachment, contained no property identity dispute, and sought permanent injunction without claiming possession recovery or declaration of encroachment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case