Dilip Trimbakrao Ghuge vs Block Devlopment Officer Panchayat Samiti Malegaon Advocate - LAHOTI VIJAY RAMPAL — 63/2018
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Disposed: Contested--PLAINT REJECTED on 16th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHWS100012452018
Filing Number
122/2018
Filing Date
07-09-2018
Registration No
63/2018
Registration Date
07-09-2018
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division, Malegaon
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. MALEGAON
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PLAINT REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dilip Trimbakrao Ghuge
Adv. LAD JALINDHAR GOVINDRAO
Respondent(s)
Block Devlopment Officer Panchayat Samiti Malegaon Advocate - LAHOTI VIJAY RAMPAL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. MALEGAON
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 24-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 09-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 04-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Dilip Trimbakrao Ghuge v. Block Development Officer (RCS 63/2018) The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for perpetual injunction with costs. The plaintiff, who claimed to operate a canteen at Panchayat Samiti premises for 20-22 years, failed to present evidence to prove his possession of the canteen or that the defendant was attempting to damage it. The court found that the plaintiff closed his evidence without leading any testimony and did not properly establish the documents he filed, thus failing to meet his burden of proof under Sections 101-102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Dilip Trimbakrao Ghuge v. Block Development Officer (RCS 63/2018) The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for perpetual injunction with costs. The plaintiff, who claimed to operate a canteen at Panchayat Samiti premises for 20-22 years, failed to present evidence to prove his possession of the canteen or that the defendant was attempting to damage it. The court found that the plaintiff closed his evidence without leading any testimony and did not properly establish the documents he filed, thus failing to meet his burden of proof under Sections 101-102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts