RAAKESH RAJENDRAKUMAR AGARWAL vs SUNDERLAL EKLINJI JAIN AND ORS Advocate - harish bhandari, ,Aarti Bhandari — WP/4232/2021

Case under C.p.c.- (Non-interlocutory Order) Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 18th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010256392021

Filing Number

WP/14153/2021

Filing Date

28-Jul-2021

Registration No

WP/4232/2021

Registration Date

13-Aug-2021

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Bench Type

Single

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

18-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 20-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Non-interlocutory Order) Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAAKESH RAJENDRAKUMAR AGARWAL

    Adv. Amol P. Mhatre

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUNDERLAL EKLINJI JAIN AND ORS Advocate - harish bhandari, ,Aarti Bhandari

  2. 2.NARESH SUNDERLAL RIYAWALA

    Adv. JOSHI JAYESH MADHAV,Aarti Harish Bhandari

  3. 3.SHANKUNTALA ISHWARLAL DALAL

  4. 4.UMESH ISHWARLAL DALAL

  5. 5.BAKUL ISHWARLAL DALAL

  6. 6.RASHMI SUDHIRBHAI RAWAL

  7. 7.YAMINI NARENDRA VACHRANJI

  8. 8.JAYA THAKORELAL DADAL

  9. 9.MAYUR THAKORELAL DALAL

  10. 10.SONAL MUKESH MISTRY

    Adv. dilip Baburao shinde

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    Due Admission - 2

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

    Summary The Bombay High Court partially allowed the writ petition filed by Raakesh Rajendrakumar Agarwal challenging the Trial Court's injunction restraining him from creating third-party rights over disputed properties. The court recognized the conflicting claims—petitioner's 2016 sale deed versus plaintiffs' earlier 2007 sale deeds—and proposed to impose mutual status quo obligations on both parties to preserve the subject matter pending final adjudication. The petition was adjourned for further hearing on 18 April 2026 after the respondents sought additional time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 17-Apr-2026

    Due Admission - 2

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  5. 26-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  6. 24-Mar-2026

    Due Admission - 2

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  8. 17-Mar-2026

    Due Admission - 2

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  9. 12-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  10. 12-Mar-2026

    Due Admission - 2

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  11. 10-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  12. 10-Feb-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  13. 14-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  14. 14-Jan-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  15. 10-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  16. 10-Dec-2025

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri Godse

  17. 11-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri GodseView PDF

  18. 11-Aug-2025

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri Godse

  19. 17-Jun-2025

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri GodseView PDF

  20. 22-Sep-2021

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Bhadang

  21. 15-Sep-2021

    Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. BhadangView PDF

  22. 15-Sep-2021

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre

  23. 31-Aug-2021

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin W. SambreView PDF

  24. 31-Aug-2021

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre

  25. 17-Aug-2021

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin W. SambreView PDF

  26. 17-Aug-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 28-Jul-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/4232/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Bombay High Court partially allowed the writ petition filed by Raakesh Rajendrakumar Agarwal challenging the Trial Court's injunction restraining him from creating third-party rights over disputed properties. The court recognized the conflicting claims—petitioner's 2016 sale deed versus plaintiffs' earlier 2007 sale deeds—and proposed to impose mutual status quo obligations on both parties to preserve the subject matter pending final adjudication. The petition was adjourned for further hearing on 18 April 2026 after the respondents sought additional time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case