Shankar Maruti Jadhav etc vs Bajarang Tatya Sidankar Advocate - Pawar P. B. — 391/2023

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Disposed: Uncontested--LOKADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit

CNR: MHSO220049882023

Filing Number

2520/2023

Filing Date

19-Sep-2022

Registration No

391/2023

Registration Date

19-Sep-2022

Court

Civil Court Senior Division , Karmala

Judge

1-Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOKADALAT

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 38

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shankar Maruti Jadhav etc

    Adv. Hirade B. T.

  2. 2.Jijabai Shankar Jadhav

    Adv. Hirade B. T.

  3. 3.Suraj Bapu Karande

  4. 4.Santosh Bhaskar Kolate

    Adv. Hirade B. T.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Bajarang Tatya Sidankar Advocate - Pawar P. B.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging a 12-foot land boundary dispute decision. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish any illegality in the lower court's order and that the respondent advocate's original boundary demarcation was valid based on existing land records. The court held the petitioners' claims and arguments to be meritless and upheld the original boundary determination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Lok-Nyayalaya

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  5. 22-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  6. 02-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  7. 04-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  8. 28-Nov-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  9. 09-Oct-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  10. 13-Sep-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  11. 21-Aug-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  12. 30-Jul-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  13. 17-Jul-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  14. 11-Jul-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  15. 19-Jun-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  16. 02-May-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  17. 24-Apr-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  18. 20-Mar-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  19. 17-Jan-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  20. 13-Nov-2024

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  21. 16-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  22. 25-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  23. 28-Jun-2024

    Dismissal Order

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  24. 24-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  25. 14-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  26. 10-Jan-2024

    —

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  27. 08-Nov-2023

    —

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  28. 15-Sep-2023

    —

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  29. 18-Aug-2023

    —

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  30. 14-Jul-2023

    —

    Civil Judge Senior Division Karmala

  31. 15-Jun-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 19-Sep-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 391/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging a 12-foot land boundary dispute decision. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish any illegality in the lower court's order and that the respondent advocate's original boundary demarcation was valid based on existing land records. The court held the petitioners' claims and arguments to be meritless and upheld the original boundary determination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case