Rajendra alias Rajabhau Aatakale etc 4 vs Madhukar Kharat etc 20 Advocate - Satale N. P. — 319/2018
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 06th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO070004022018
Next Hearing
06th July 2026
Filing Number
397/2018
Filing Date
18-07-2018
Registration No
319/2018
Registration Date
01-08-2018
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur
Judge
6-2nd Jt. CJJD and J.M.F.C. Pandhaprur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajendra alias Rajabhau Aatakale etc 4
Adv. Pore C. A.
Tukaram Aatkale
Adv. Waskar P. V.
Sakharam Aatkale
Adv. Waskar P. V.
Maruti Aatkale
Adv. Waskar P. V.
Mahadev Aatkale
Adv. Waskar P. V.
Respondent(s)
Madhukar Kharat etc 20 Advocate - Satale N. P.
Ankush Kharat
Wasudev Wadadekar
Vikram Shirsat
Adv. Paricharak Shriram Prakash
Laxman Shirsat
Pramod Chavan
Bharat Nimbalkar
Bhalchandra Nimbalkar
Sopan Nimbalkar
Aajinath Nimbalkar
Gorakh Nimbalkar
Dwarakabai Sarade
Popat Nimbalkar
Baban Nimbalkar
Bhagwan Nimbalkar
Chairman Vitthal Shetkari Sah. Sut Girani, Pandharpur
Adv. Ghadage K. M
Pandurang Aatkale
Tai Nagane
Namdev Aatakale
Rukmini Aatakale
Haribhau Aatakale
Hearing History
Judge: 6-2nd Jt. CJJD and J.M.F.C. Pandhaprur
Evidence
List of Witness
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | List of Witness |
| 16-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 05-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 05-12-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 319/2018 In this perpetual injunction suit, the plaintiff's application for issuing a court commission to obtain expert opinion on property boundaries was rejected. The court found the application untenable because boundaries were already clearly defined in the plaint, and the documents plaintiff sought to collect through commission should have been filed at the suit's inception. The court held that a commission cannot be used for evidence collection to support a party's case. The plaintiff is directed to lead evidence at the earliest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 319/2018 In this perpetual injunction suit, the plaintiff's application for issuing a court commission to obtain expert opinion on property boundaries was rejected. The court found the application untenable because boundaries were already clearly defined in the plaint, and the documents plaintiff sought to collect through commission should have been filed at the suit's inception. The court held that a commission cannot be used for evidence collection to support a party's case. The plaintiff is directed to lead evidence at the earliest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts