Santosh S/o Bhaurao khandare vs Maroti S/o Ananda Girvalkar Advocate - PANDIT SATISH ATMARAM — 80/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 39. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 03rd August 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHWS080011352021
Next Hearing
03rd August 2026
Filing Number
181/2021
Filing Date
27-07-2021
Registration No
80/2021
Registration Date
27-07-2021
Court
Civil Court Junior Division,Risod
Judge
7-2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Risod
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Santosh S/o Bhaurao khandare
Adv. UNDAL MADANRAO KUNDLIKRAO
Respondent(s)
Maroti S/o Ananda Girvalkar Advocate - PANDIT SATISH ATMARAM
Hearing History
Judge: 7-2nd Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Risod
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-06-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 28-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 80/2021 (Santosh v. Maroti) The court rejected the defendant's application seeking rejection of the plaintiff's plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding agricultural land in Block 56, claiming ownership via a registered gift deed from Kisan Jayaji Khandare. The defendant argued the plaint lacked cause of action since revenue records showed only 0.14R land to the plaintiff. The court held that the plaint clearly discloses a cause of action (dated 26/07/2021) and serious allegations requiring trial; factual disputes regarding property existence must be determined through evidence after full trial, not at the plaint rejection stage. Application rejected with costs in cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 80/2021 (Santosh v. Maroti) The court rejected the defendant's application seeking rejection of the plaintiff's plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding agricultural land in Block 56, claiming ownership via a registered gift deed from Kisan Jayaji Khandare. The defendant argued the plaint lacked cause of action since revenue records showed only 0.14R land to the plaintiff. The court held that the plaint clearly discloses a cause of action (dated 26/07/2021) and serious allegations requiring trial; factual disputes regarding property existence must be determined through evidence after full trial, not at the plaint rejection stage. Application rejected with costs in cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts