Shakuntalabai Rupchand Jain Represented by Power of Attorney - Milind Rupchand Jain vs Ganesh Laxman Ware — 4/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Status: Compliance. Next hearing: 01st July 2026.
Reg Dkst - Regular Execution Petition
CNR: MHWS020000762017
Next Hearing
01st July 2026
Filing Number
76/2017
Filing Date
09-02-2017
Registration No
4/2017
Registration Date
10-02-2017
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Washim
Judge
1-Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Washim.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shakuntalabai Rupchand Jain Represented by Power of Attorney - Milind Rupchand Jain
Adv. DHAGADE KANTILAL RAMPAL
Respondent(s)
Ganesh Laxman Ware
Collector Washim
CEO, Z.P. Washim
Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Ansing
Sub Division Officer, B And C
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Washim.
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-06-2026 | Compliance |
| 23-04-2026 | Compliance |
| 07-04-2026 | Compliance |
| 16-03-2026 | Compliance |
| 16-02-2026 | Compliance |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 4/2017 Outcome: Petition dismissed; all applications rejected. The court found that petitioner D.P. failed to properly describe the property in question and did not establish ownership or boundaries as required. The court noted that D.P. had not demonstrated full governmental survey of the disputed area nor provided adequate documentation. Rejecting D.P.'s arguments, the court held the petition non-maintainable and found that respondent (plaintiff/D.P.) had already obtained a favorable judgment in Civil Case 85/2009 (dated 18-07-2016) establishing ownership, which was upheld by J.D. The court dismissed D.P.'s petition as the matter had already been adjudicated, and all pending applications were rejected accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 4/2017 Outcome: Petition dismissed; all applications rejected. The court found that petitioner D.P. failed to properly describe the property in question and did not establish ownership or boundaries as required. The court noted that D.P. had not demonstrated full governmental survey of the disputed area nor provided adequate documentation. Rejecting D.P.'s arguments, the court held the petition non-maintainable and found that respondent (plaintiff/D.P.) had already obtained a favorable judgment in Civil Case 85/2009 (dated 18-07-2016) establishing ownership, which was upheld by J.D. The court dismissed D.P.'s petition as the matter had already been adjudicated, and all pending applications were rejected accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts