Dinesh Chandrikaparasad Pathak vs Sapna Abhijeet Pathak Advocate - Atul Patil — 88/2020
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Dismissal Order. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHTH170015732020
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
Filing Number
168/2020
Filing Date
29-10-2020
Registration No
88/2020
Registration Date
29-10-2020
Court
Civil Court Junior Divison , Palghar
Judge
11-Civil Judge S D Palghar
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dinesh Chandrikaparasad Pathak
Adv. Priti Bhanushali
Respondent(s)
Sapna Abhijeet Pathak Advocate - Atul Patil
Amrut Baccharaj Jain
Deelip Singh
Hearing History
Judge: 11-Civil Judge S D Palghar
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 13-03-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 30-01-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 20-12-2025 | Dismissal Order |
| 25-11-2025 | Dismissal Order |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 88/2020 Petitioner: Dinesh Chandrikaparasad Pathak Respondent: Sapna Abhijeet Pathak (and others) Court: Civil Suit, Palghar Date: 02/02/2023 Outcome: The court partially allowed the petitioner's suit. The petitioner's claim regarding ownership and possession of three disputed rooms (Property Nos. 467/1, 467/2, 467/3) in a building was established. The court decreed that the respondent No. 1 must not interfere with the petitioner's possession of these rooms and is prohibited from transferring them to third parties pending final resolution of the case. The petitioner's other claims were dismissed as unmeritorious. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 88/2020 Petitioner: Dinesh Chandrikaparasad Pathak Respondent: Sapna Abhijeet Pathak (and others) Court: Civil Suit, Palghar Date: 02/02/2023 Outcome: The court partially allowed the petitioner's suit. The petitioner's claim regarding ownership and possession of three disputed rooms (Property Nos. 467/1, 467/2, 467/3) in a building was established. The court decreed that the respondent No. 1 must not interfere with the petitioner's possession of these rooms and is prohibited from transferring them to third parties pending final resolution of the case. The petitioner's other claims were dismissed as unmeritorious. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts