Machindra Maruti Wagh vs Sitaram Mahadev Dandage Advocate - Satale N. P. — 583/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.

Argument on Exh.____Unready Next hearing 12-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHSO070007082025

e-Filing Number

29-11-2025

Filing Number

780/2025

Filing Date

01-Dec-2025

Registration No

583/2025

Registration Date

05-Dec-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur

Judge

1-Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. Pandharpur

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Machindra Maruti Wagh

    Adv. DESHMUKH DATTA SHIVAJI

  2. 2.Gorakh Maruti Wagh

    Adv. DESHMUKH DATTA SHIVAJI

  3. 3.Sambhaji Maruti Wagh

    Adv. DESHMUKH DATTA SHIVAJI

  4. 4.Tulshiram Maruti Wagh

    Adv. DESHMUKH DATTA SHIVAJI

  5. 5.Rajvanta Balu More

    Adv. DESHMUKH DATTA SHIVAJI

  6. 6.Vijaya Ambadas Achakal

    Adv. DESHMUKH DATTA SHIVAJI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sitaram Mahadev Dandage Advocate - Satale N. P.

  2. 2.Sagar Mahadev Dandage

  3. 3.Mangal Mahadev Dandage

  4. 4.Hari Shankar Wagh

  5. 5.Ganpat Shankar Wagh

  6. 6.Bhaskar Shankar Wagh

  7. 7.Laxmi Nagnath More

  8. 8.Avinda Dinkar Bombale

  9. 9.Sindhu Narayan More

  10. 10.Bhajandas Maruti Wagh

Case History

  1. 12-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 04-May-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. Pandharpur

  3. 13-Apr-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 583/2025 The court rejected the defendants' application to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit for declaration and injunction regarding disputed property. The defendants argued the suit lacked cause of action and that necessary parties were omitted, but the court found these grounds insufficient under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court held that the plaint clearly disclosed the cause of action—obstruction by defendants to plaintiffs' possession—and that questions regarding plaintiffs' legal rights and necessary parties require merit-based adjudication, not summary dismissal. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 13-Apr-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. Pandharpur

  5. 03-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. Pandharpur

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. Pandharpur

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. Pandharpur

  8. 16-Feb-2026

    W.S. and Say

    Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. Pandharpur

  9. 31-Jan-2026

    W.S. and Say

    Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. Pandharpur

  10. 21-Jan-2026

    Notice_Unready

    Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. Pandharpur

  11. 05-Jan-2026

    Notice_Unready

    Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. Pandharpur

  12. 09-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  13. 01-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 583/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 583/2025 The court rejected the defendants' application to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit for declaration and injunction regarding disputed property. The defendants argued the suit lacked cause of action and that necessary parties were omitted, but the court found these grounds insufficient under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court held that the plaint clearly disclosed the cause of action—obstruction by defendants to plaintiffs' possession—and that questions regarding plaintiffs' legal rights and necessary parties require merit-based adjudication, not summary dismissal. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case