Dashrath Keshav Gaikwad vs Jagannath Kondiba Gaikwadi others Advocate - Gaikwad R. Y. — 124/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST130011442019
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
179/2019
Filing Date
24-12-2019
Registration No
124/2019
Registration Date
24-12-2019
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Patan
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dashrath Keshav Gaikwad
Adv. Bhise C.L
Dagadu Yesu Gaikwad(Legal Heir) 2.
Maruti Dagadu Gaikwad 2.
Laxman Dagadu Gaikwad
Dhondya Kalu Mahar(Legal Heir) 3.
Dashrath Keshav Gaikwad
Gunda Kesu Mahar(Legal Heir) 4.
Shevantabai Gunda Gaikwad 4.
Housabai Gunda Gaikwad 4.
Ananda Gunda Gaikwad 4.
Rajaram Gunda Gaikwad 4.
Nanu Gunda Gaikwad 4.
Nandabai Parashram Gaikwad 4.
Prakash Bunda Gaikwad 4.
Jagubai Ramchandra Kamble 4.
Kalabai Shivaji Kadam
Respondent(s)
Jagannath Kondiba Gaikwadi others Advocate - Gaikwad R. Y.
Hirabai Jagannath Gaikwad
Rahibai Shripati Kamble
Reshma Tanaji Kamble
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 03-01-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 30-10-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 12-09-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 08-08-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The Court rejected the plaintiff's application for appointment of a Court Commissioner to measure and demarcate the suit property boundaries in a perpetual injunction case. The Civil Judge found that while commissioner appointments are generally warranted in boundary dispute cases, the repeated nature of the plaintiff's similar applications (previously rejected or withdrawn), combined with prior court rejections and lack of new compelling circumstances, rendered the current application not warranted and potentially harassing to the defendant. The Court determined possession and interference issues can be assessed through evidence adduced during trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The Court rejected the plaintiff's application for appointment of a Court Commissioner to measure and demarcate the suit property boundaries in a perpetual injunction case. The Civil Judge found that while commissioner appointments are generally warranted in boundary dispute cases, the repeated nature of the plaintiff's similar applications (previously rejected or withdrawn), combined with prior court rejections and lack of new compelling circumstances, rendered the current application not warranted and potentially harassing to the defendant. The Court determined possession and interference issues can be assessed through evidence adduced during trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts