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
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
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
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts