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
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
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.
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Issues |
| 13-03-2026 | Issues |
| 29-01-2026 | Issues |
| 10-12-2025 | Issues |
| 29-10-2025 | Issues |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Explore other courts