Shivchand Uttam Rathod vs Kashinath Maroti Mahalle Advocate - SARKALE SANTOSH NARAYANRAO — 29/2026

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 03rd July 2026.

R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit

CNR: MHWS050001292026

Hearing

Next Hearing

03rd July 2026

e-Filing Number

16-03-2026

Filing Number

130/2026

Filing Date

16-03-2026

Registration No

29/2026

Registration Date

16-03-2026

Court

Civil Judge Senior Division,Link Court,Mangrulpi

Judge

3-Jt.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Mangrulpir

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34,38

Petitioner(s)

Shivchand Uttam Rathod

Adv. MOHD MARUF KHAN AFZAL KHAN

Ramchandra Uttam Rathod

Adv. MOHD MARUF KHAN AFZAL KHAN

Respondent(s)

Kashinath Maroti Mahalle Advocate - SARKALE SANTOSH NARAYANRAO

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Jt.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Mangrulpir

12-06-2026

Hearing

08-05-2026

Hearing

17-04-2026

Hearing

10-04-2026

Hearing

04-04-2026

Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

Interim Orders

08-05-2026
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: Shivchand Uttam Rathod v. Kashinath Maroti Mahalle (RCS 29/2026) The court rejected the defendant's application to dismiss the plaint. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding agricultural lands, challenging a Tahsildar's order directing a way to remain open. The court held that proceedings under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act are summary in nature and do not bar civil court jurisdiction, that withdrawal of prior revision proceedings doesn't prevent filing a substantive suit, and that non-joinder of statutory authorities is not grounds for rejection. The suit proceeds to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Shivchand Uttam Rathod v. Kashinath Maroti Mahalle (RCS 29/2026) The court rejected the defendant's application to dismiss the plaint. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding agricultural lands, challenging a Tahsildar's order directing a way to remain open. The court held that proceedings under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act are summary in nature and do not bar civil court jurisdiction, that withdrawal of prior revision proceedings doesn't prevent filing a substantive suit, and that non-joinder of statutory authorities is not grounds for rejection. The suit proceeds to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Judge Senior Division,Link Court,Mangrulpi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case