Shaukatbhai Bandubhai Shekh vs Santosh Ashok Jadhav — 82/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Status: Awaiting Summons. Next hearing: 04th May 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST080003532022
Next Hearing
04th May 2026
Filing Number
131/2022
Filing Date
25-04-2022
Registration No
82/2022
Registration Date
26-04-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Khandala
Judge
2-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Khandala.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shaukatbhai Bandubhai Shekh
Adv. Khan I. D.
Munirbhai Bandubhai Shekh
Ikbal Bandubhai Shekh
Aazad Bandubhai Shekh
Respondent(s)
Santosh Ashok Jadhav
Sanjay Namdev Pansare
Sagar Namdev Pansare
Gulab Namdev Pansare
Ruksha Ankush Pawar
Rekha Laxman Bhosale
Suresh Sukhdev Parkhande
Prakash Sukhdev Parkhande
Baby Babasaheb Pawar
Mangal Kishor Chavan
Sharda Dilip Chavan
Jayashree Rajendra Aatole
Nanda Sanjay Aatole
Shalan Vikas Chavan
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Khandala.
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 24-12-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
| 17-10-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
| 18-08-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
| 12-06-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
Interim Orders
Summary The plaintiff's petition (Under Order 26, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908) for appointment of Court Commissioner to measure the disputed property and restrain alleged encroachment by the defendant was dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff had not established a valid basis for the requested relief, as prior surveys (2014 and 2015) had already been conducted and showed no encroachment on the defendant's property boundaries. The court ruled that the plaintiff must establish their case through their own evidence rather than relying on fresh court-ordered measurements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The plaintiff's petition (Under Order 26, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908) for appointment of Court Commissioner to measure the disputed property and restrain alleged encroachment by the defendant was dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff had not established a valid basis for the requested relief, as prior surveys (2014 and 2015) had already been conducted and showed no encroachment on the defendant's property boundaries. The court ruled that the plaintiff must establish their case through their own evidence rather than relying on fresh court-ordered measurements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts