Prashant Mangalsing Rayate vs Hanumant Raghunath Pol — 900147/2014
Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST160006952014
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
900255/2014
Filing Date
11-07-2014
Registration No
900147/2014
Registration Date
19-07-2014
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Wai
Judge
2-IInd Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C Wai
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Prashant Mangalsing Rayate
Adv. Wadikar N.M
Alka Mangalsing Rayate
Adv. Wadikar N.M
Respondent(s)
Hanumant Raghunath Pol
Rupesh Raghunath Pol
Adv. Bagwan F.A
Samindra Raghunath Pol
Adv. Bagwan F.A
Nilam Sunil Jagtap
Adv. Bagwan F.A
Sushma Amarsinha Dhumal
Adv. Bagwan F.A
Hearing History
Judge: 2-IInd Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C Wai
Defence Evidence
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 09-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 05-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 31-10-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 19-09-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No.: N.I.M.U.Cr. 147/2014 (Prashant v. Hanmant) Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court rejected the plaintiff's claims regarding disputed property (Plot No. 1249) acquired during dam resettlement (1976-1977). The court found the plaintiff's testimony unreliable, noting contradictions between the plaintiff's husband's involvement and the filed petition, and determined that the 3-year agreement period had expired over 14 years prior, negating any claim rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No.: N.I.M.U.Cr. 147/2014 (Prashant v. Hanmant) Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court rejected the plaintiff's claims regarding disputed property (Plot No. 1249) acquired during dam resettlement (1976-1977). The court found the plaintiff's testimony unreliable, noting contradictions between the plaintiff's husband's involvement and the filed petition, and determined that the 3-year agreement period had expired over 14 years prior, negating any claim rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts