Baliram Rama patale, etc. vs Bhauso Nivrutti Mundafane, etc. Advocate - Phade Dilip A. — 68/2019
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 16. Status: Awaiting Report of Commissioner. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO100002622019
Next Hearing
30th June 2026
Filing Number
111/2019
Filing Date
23-01-2019
Registration No
68/2019
Registration Date
23-01-2019
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Malshiras
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Malshiras
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Baliram Rama patale, etc.
Adv. Chavan Shankarrao M.
Jagannath Baji patale
shahurav Govind patale
Hanmant vitthal patale
Haridas vitthal patale
Bhajandas vitthal patale
Respondent(s)
Bhauso Nivrutti Mundafane, etc. Advocate - Phade Dilip A.
vishnu Nivrutti Mundfane
Dattatray Maruti Mundafane
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Malshiras
Awaiting Report of Commissioner
Awaiting Report of Commissioner
Awaiting Report of Commissioner
Awaiting Report of Commissioner
Awaiting Report of Commissioner
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Awaiting Report of Commissioner |
| 13-03-2026 | Awaiting Report of Commissioner |
| 04-02-2026 | Awaiting Report of Commissioner |
| 03-01-2026 | Awaiting Report of Commissioner |
| 28-11-2025 | Awaiting Report of Commissioner |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Regular Civil Suit No. 68/2019 The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint by adding proposed defendants (adjacent land owners who purchased property in 2016) and including a perpetual injunction relief. The court found these parties necessary for boundary fixation proceedings and proper execution of any decree, despite their simultaneous role as plaintiffs in a related suit (RCS 39/2019). The plaintiff was directed to carry out the amendment accordingly, with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Regular Civil Suit No. 68/2019 The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint by adding proposed defendants (adjacent land owners who purchased property in 2016) and including a perpetual injunction relief. The court found these parties necessary for boundary fixation proceedings and proper execution of any decree, despite their simultaneous role as plaintiffs in a related suit (RCS 39/2019). The plaintiff was directed to carry out the amendment accordingly, with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts