Shankarrao Mahadeo Jagdale vs Milind Dadasaheb Jagdale — 71/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Partition. Status: W.S. and Say. Next hearing: 30th March 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHST180002402023
Next Hearing
30th March 2026
Filing Number
240/2023
Filing Date
06-04-2023
Registration No
71/2023
Registration Date
06-04-2023
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Vaduj
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. And Addl. C. J. M., Vaduj
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shankarrao Mahadeo Jagdale
Adv. Gundage S B
Respondent(s)
Milind Dadasaheb Jagdale
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. And Addl. C. J. M., Vaduj
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
Issues
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 16-02-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 31-01-2026 | Issues |
| 30-01-2026 | Order |
| 23-01-2026 | Order |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for appointment of a Court Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to inspect disputed property (Gat No. 1236/5 in Mhaswad, Satara). The court found that plaintiffs were taking contradictory positions—claiming in the suit that no partition had occurred while asserting in the commissioner application that an oral and written partition had already taken place. Additionally, the court observed that the construction on the property was temporary in nature and there was no genuine encroachment dispute pleaded in the original plaint, making the commissioner's appointment unnecessary and premature before deciding the main temporary injunction application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for appointment of a Court Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to inspect disputed property (Gat No. 1236/5 in Mhaswad, Satara). The court found that plaintiffs were taking contradictory positions—claiming in the suit that no partition had occurred while asserting in the commissioner application that an oral and written partition had already taken place. Additionally, the court observed that the construction on the property was temporary in nature and there was no genuine encroachment dispute pleaded in the original plaint, making the commissioner's appointment unnecessary and premature before deciding the main temporary injunction application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts