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
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
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
Notice_Unready
Notice_Unready
Notice_Unready
Notice_Unready
Notice_Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts