Bapusaheb Vishinu Jagtap vs Balasaheb Vishinu Jagtap Advocate - Sathe Y. B. — 564/2023

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 14th August 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHSO170024942023

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

Next Hearing

14th August 2026

Filing Number

636/2023

Filing Date

21-08-2023

Registration No

564/2023

Registration Date

23-08-2023

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Madha

Judge

4-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Madha

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 38

Petitioner(s)

Bapusaheb Vishinu Jagtap

Adv. Ingale S.V.

Respondent(s)

Balasaheb Vishinu Jagtap Advocate - Sathe Y. B.

Kumar Haridas Jagtap

Chandrakant Limbaji Jagtap

Hearing History

Judge: 4-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Madha

08-05-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

13-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

23-01-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

12-12-2025

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

29-11-2025

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

Interim Orders

29-11-2025
Order on Exhibit

In RCS 564/2023, the court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint in a suit concerning measurement and fixation of property boundaries. A court commissioner had measured the property on 14/06/2024 and reported that defendants had encroached on the suit property; the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint based on the commissioner's findings. The court found the amendment just and necessary to elucidate the real controversy and granted it, ordering the plaintiff to submit the amended plaint within 14 days while preserving defendants' rights to make consequential amendments and object to the commissioner's report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

In RCS 564/2023, the court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint in a suit concerning measurement and fixation of property boundaries. A court commissioner had measured the property on 14/06/2024 and reported that defendants had encroached on the suit property; the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint based on the commissioner's findings. The court found the amendment just and necessary to elucidate the real controversy and granted it, ordering the plaintiff to submit the amended plaint within 14 days while preserving defendants' rights to make consequential amendments and object to the commissioner's report. 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