Annasaheb Urf Annaso Gajanan Patkulkar vs Sadashiv Shripati Nalwade — 37/2026

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Notice_Unready. Next hearing: 28th July 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHSO170002512026

Notice_Unready

Next Hearing

28th July 2026

e-Filing Number

21-01-2026

Filing Number

41/2026

Filing Date

21-01-2026

Registration No

37/2026

Registration Date

21-01-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Madha

Judge

4-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Madha

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34,38

Petitioner(s)

Annasaheb Urf Annaso Gajanan Patkulkar

Adv. Yogesh Bapurao Sathe

Respondent(s)

Sadashiv Shripati Nalwade

Hearing History

Judge: 4-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Madha

05-05-2026

Notice_Unready

16-03-2026

Notice_Unready

13-03-2026

Notice_Unready

11-03-2026

Notice_Unready

10-03-2026

Notice_Unready

Interim Orders

16-03-2026
Order on T.I.

Case Summary: 37/2026 Petitioner: Annasaheb Urf Annaso Gajanan Patkulkar Respondent: Sadashiv Shripati Nalwade Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court found that the petitioner, though a party in the original matter before the Tahsildar, failed to present arguments at that stage and subsequently filed this revision petition. The court held that the petitioner had adequate alternative remedies available and did not avail them. Regarding the substantive issues concerning access rights to land parcels under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code Section 143, the court determined these matters require examination during the original hearing and declined to interfere at the revision stage. The order granting access to the respondents by the Tahsildar was found neither void nor procedurally improper. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 37/2026 Petitioner: Annasaheb Urf Annaso Gajanan Patkulkar Respondent: Sadashiv Shripati Nalwade Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court found that the petitioner, though a party in the original matter before the Tahsildar, failed to present arguments at that stage and subsequently filed this revision petition. The court held that the petitioner had adequate alternative remedies available and did not avail them. Regarding the substantive issues concerning access rights to land parcels under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code Section 143, the court determined these matters require examination during the original hearing and declined to interfere at the revision stage. The order granting access to the respondents by the Tahsildar was found neither void nor procedurally improper. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Madha All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case