Agatrav Tukaram Gawade 2 vs Anna Maruti Gawade 4 Advocate - Inamdar M.S. — 473/2023

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 39. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 06th July 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHSO200019162023

Issues

Next Hearing

06th July 2026

e-Filing Number

14-08-2023

Filing Number

560/2023

Filing Date

14-08-2023

Registration No

473/2023

Registration Date

18-08-2023

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Sangola

Judge

10-Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 39

Petitioner(s)

Agatrav Tukaram Gawade 2

Adv. PATEL AYUB SARDAR

Bandu Bajrang Burange

Adv. PATEL AYUB SARDAR

Respondent(s)

Anna Maruti Gawade 4 Advocate - Inamdar M.S.

Ashok Maruti Gawade

Archana Rajendra Gawade

Hearing History

Judge: 10-Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.

20-04-2026

Issues

13-03-2026

Issues

29-01-2026

Issues

10-12-2025

Issues

29-10-2025

Issues

Interim Orders

17-02-2025
Order on T.I.

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 473/2023 Court: 2nd Joint Civil Judge, J.D. & J.M.F.C., Sangola, Maharashtra Petitioner(s): Agatrav Tukaram Gawade and Bandu Bajrang Burange Respondent(s): Anna Maruti Gawade, Ashok Maruti Gawade, and Archana Rajendra Gawade Outcome: The petition was dismissed. The court found that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence of harassment or obstruction by the respondents regarding disputed agricultural land (plot no. 298). The court noted discrepancies in the petitioners' claims and lack of documentary proof, while the respondents' possession was supported by revenue records. Costs were directed to be borne by each party individually. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 473/2023 Court: 2nd Joint Civil Judge, J.D. & J.M.F.C., Sangola, Maharashtra Petitioner(s): Agatrav Tukaram Gawade and Bandu Bajrang Burange Respondent(s): Anna Maruti Gawade, Ashok Maruti Gawade, and Archana Rajendra Gawade Outcome: The petition was dismissed. The court found that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence of harassment or obstruction by the respondents regarding disputed agricultural land (plot no. 298). The court noted discrepancies in the petitioners' claims and lack of documentary proof, while the respondents' possession was supported by revenue records. Costs were directed to be borne by each party individually. 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 , Sangola All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case