ROHIT RAJENDRA JADHAV vs HANUMANT ANKUSH KASHID — 169/2026

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

Case disposed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHSO130001912026

e-Filing Number

10-03-2026

Filing Number

206/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

169/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-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.ROHIT RAJENDRA JADHAV

    Adv. Kashid S R

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HANUMANT ANKUSH KASHID

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    DecreeView PDF

    The National Lok Adalat at Barshi, presided over by Smt. P.V. Raut (Panel Head), passed an award on March 14, 2026, resolving a dispute between petitioner Rohit Rajendra Jadhav and respondent Hanumant Ankush Kashid through compromise settlement. The parties agreed to settle their land dispute involving property boundaries and measurement details, and the Lok Adalat awarded the settlement as per the terms filed by the parties. Court fees, if any paid, were ordered to be refunded. 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. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 169/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The National Lok Adalat at Barshi, presided over by Smt. P.V. Raut (Panel Head), passed an award on March 14, 2026, resolving a dispute between petitioner Rohit Rajendra Jadhav and respondent Hanumant Ankush Kashid through compromise settlement. The parties agreed to settle their land dispute involving property boundaries and measurement details, and the Lok Adalat awarded the settlement as per the terms filed by the parties. Court fees, if any paid, were ordered to be refunded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case