Nitin Santnath Jadhav vs Dattatray Shamrao Surwase — 74/2026

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Disposed: Uncontested--LOKADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHSO130000812026

e-Filing Number

04-02-2026

Filing Number

87/2026

Filing Date

06-Feb-2026

Registration No

74/2026

Registration Date

10-Feb-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi

Judge

1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOKADALAT

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Nitin Santnath Jadhav

    Adv. PATIL RAHUL ANKUSH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Dattatray Shamrao Surwase

  2. 2.Vijay Nagnath Khalse

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    DecreeView PDF

    The National Lok-Adalat at Barshi (dated March 14, 2026) resolved a dispute between petitioner Nitin Santnath Jadhav and respondents Dattatray Shamrao Surwase and Vijay Nagnath Khalse through compromise settlement. The court approved the settlement agreement with specific terms regarding land boundaries, monetary compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to be paid by respondent no. 1, and clarification of property ownership rights. Court fees, if any, were ordered to be refunded to the parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Lok-Nyayalaya

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.

  5. 11-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 74/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The National Lok-Adalat at Barshi (dated March 14, 2026) resolved a dispute between petitioner Nitin Santnath Jadhav and respondents Dattatray Shamrao Surwase and Vijay Nagnath Khalse through compromise settlement. The court approved the settlement agreement with specific terms regarding land boundaries, monetary compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to be paid by respondent no. 1, and clarification of property ownership rights. Court fees, if any, were ordered to be refunded to the parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case