Arun Mohan Nagtilak vs Balbhim Sadashiv Godse — 392/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO070004622025
e-Filing Number
12-08-2025
Filing Number
507/2025
Filing Date
12-Aug-2025
Registration No
392/2025
Registration Date
19-Aug-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur
Judge
4-3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
Last updated 03-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Arun Mohan Nagtilak
Adv. KAWADE BALIRAM MAHADEO
-
2.Sita Arun Nagtilak
Adv. KAWADE BALIRAM MAHADEO
-
3.Vitthal Mohan Nagtilak
Adv. KAWADE BALIRAM MAHADEO
-
4.Deepak Vitthal Nagtilak
Adv. KAWADE BALIRAM MAHADEO
-
5.Devidas Suresh Adhatrao
Adv. KAWADE BALIRAM MAHADEO
Respondent(s)
-
1.Balbhim Sadashiv Godse
-
2.Ajinath Bhimrao Pawar
-
3.Sagar Balbhim Godse
-
4.Sandeep Balabhim Godse
-
5.Uttam Nivrutti Ghalke
-
6.Sarika Nagnath Nagtilak
-
7.Namdev Ajinath Nagtilak
-
8.Vishwnath Ajinath Nagtilak
-
9.Avinda Tanaji Nagtilak
-
10.Vinayak Tanaji Nagtilak
-
11.Shrikrishna Tanaji Nagtilak
-
12.Swati Tukaram Ghalke
-
13.Lata Tukaram Ghalke
-
14.Draupadi Nivruti Ghalake
-
15.Jotiram Tukaram Ghalke
-
16.Pandurang Lakshman Nagtilak
-
17.Mahadev Ganpat Nagtilak
-
18.Anita Pandurang Nagtilak
-
19.Siddheshwar Bhagwan Nagtilak
Case History
-
23-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
02-May-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
02-May-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case Summary: RCS 392/2025 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for appointment of a court commissioner. The plaintiffs sought to appoint the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Pandharpur, as a court commissioner to conduct a local inspection of disputed properties in a perpetual injunction suit. The court found the application unmaintainable, holding that determining property boundaries was not a matter in dispute requiring local investigation, and that plaintiffs cannot use a court commissioner merely to collect evidence. The burden of proof remains on the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-May-2026
Issues
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
28-Apr-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
27-Apr-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
23-Apr-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
23-Apr-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
23-Apr-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
21-Apr-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
20-Apr-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
15-Apr-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
08-Apr-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
20-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
20-Mar-2026
Awaiting Summons
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
13-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
13-Mar-2026
Awaiting Summons
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
20-Feb-2026
Awaiting Summons
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
09-Feb-2026
Awaiting Summons
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
22-Jan-2026
Awaiting Summons
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
03-Jan-2026
Awaiting Summons
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
22-Dec-2025
Awaiting Summons
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
11-Dec-2025
Awaiting Summons
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
17-Nov-2025
Awaiting Summons
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
17-Oct-2025
Awaiting Summons
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
17-Sep-2025
Awaiting Summons
3rd Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Pandharpur
-
22-Aug-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 392/2025
Case Summary: RCS 392/2025 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for appointment of a court commissioner. The plaintiffs sought to appoint the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Pandharpur, as a court commissioner to conduct a local inspection of disputed properties in a perpetual injunction suit. The court found the application unmaintainable, holding that determining property boundaries was not a matter in dispute requiring local investigation, and that plaintiffs cannot use a court commissioner merely to collect evidence. The burden of proof remains on the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts