Prasad Ashok Khadilkar vs Shital Mohanlal Fade Advocate - Khiste Balkrishna K — 478/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.

Hearing Next hearing 19-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHSO070005802025

e-Filing Number

03-10-2025

Filing Number

639/2025

Filing Date

04-Oct-2025

Registration No

478/2025

Registration Date

07-Oct-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur

Judge

10-5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34,38

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Prasad Ashok Khadilkar

    Adv. Dandage Laxman Dharmraj

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shital Mohanlal Fade Advocate - Khiste Balkrishna K

  2. 2.Rajendra Pavanlal Fade

  3. 3.Mahavir Hukumchand Fadiya

    Adv. Khiste Balkrishna K

Case History

  1. 19-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 27-Apr-2026

    Order on T.I.View PDF

    Case 478/2025 Summary Court: 5th Joint Civil Judge & Joint Municipal First Class Court, Pandharpur Petitioner: Prasad Ashok Khadilkar Respondents: Shital Mohanlal Fade (Advocate), Khiste Balkrishna K, Rajendra Pavanlal Fade, and Mahavir Hukumchand Fadiya Outcome: The court dismissed the petitioner's applications (Civil Suit No. 05 and 25). The court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that they have valid ownership and possession rights over their property. The petitioner's plea seeking to prevent the respondents from selling plots (31-34) created from a road adjacent to the petitioner's property was rejected. The court upheld a 2017 administrative order recognizing the road as part of the respondents' land, noting the petitioner failed to challenge this order timely or appeal it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  4. 24-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  5. 22-Apr-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  6. 16-Apr-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  7. 03-Apr-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  8. 23-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  9. 18-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  10. 13-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  11. 09-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  12. 27-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  13. 21-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  14. 04-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  15. 07-Jan-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  16. 08-Dec-2025

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  17. 19-Nov-2025

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  18. 31-Oct-2025

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  19. 17-Oct-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  20. 13-Oct-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    5th Jt Cjjd and JMFC Pandharpur

  21. 08-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 04-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 478/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case 478/2025 Summary Court: 5th Joint Civil Judge & Joint Municipal First Class Court, Pandharpur Petitioner: Prasad Ashok Khadilkar Respondents: Shital Mohanlal Fade (Advocate), Khiste Balkrishna K, Rajendra Pavanlal Fade, and Mahavir Hukumchand Fadiya Outcome: The court dismissed the petitioner's applications (Civil Suit No. 05 and 25). The court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that they have valid ownership and possession rights over their property. The petitioner's plea seeking to prevent the respondents from selling plots (31-34) created from a road adjacent to the petitioner's property was rejected. The court upheld a 2017 administrative order recognizing the road as part of the respondents' land, noting the petitioner failed to challenge this order timely or appeal it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case