Keshao Haribhau Thakare vs Datta Namdeo Thakare Advocate - DHAGADE KANTILAL RAMPAL — 600214/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section SuitForMandatoryInjunction. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING on 28th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHWS020006152015
Filing Number
600618/2015
Filing Date
17-12-2015
Registration No
600214/2015
Registration Date
17-12-2015
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Washim
Judge
1-Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Washim.
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Keshao Haribhau Thakare
Adv. Pathade Sanjay Kisan
Respondent(s)
Datta Namdeo Thakare Advocate - DHAGADE KANTILAL RAMPAL
Sub Registar Washim
Collector Washim
Kamalbai Laxman Raut
Prashram Ramchandra Thakare
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Washim.
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 20-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 16-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 10-04-2026 | Judgment |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Keshao Haribhau Thakare v. Datta Namdeo Thakare & Others Court Decision: The suit was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The court found that civil courts lack jurisdiction over matters involving alleged violations of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, which must be decided by competent revenue authorities. The plaintiff failed to establish preemption rights as an adjoining landowner, and the defendants obtained proper SDO permission for the land sale. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Keshao Haribhau Thakare v. Datta Namdeo Thakare & Others Court Decision: The suit was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The court found that civil courts lack jurisdiction over matters involving alleged violations of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, which must be decided by competent revenue authorities. The plaintiff failed to establish preemption rights as an adjoining landowner, and the defendants obtained proper SDO permission for the land sale. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts