SHRI SHAHAJI SHIVRAM BHUJBAL Since deceased through legal heirs(Legal Heir) vs RAMESH MANIK JADHAV — HCBM10257362025

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 100. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCBM010257362025

e-Filing Number

02-05-2025

Filing Number

IA/16376/2025

Filing Date

02-May-2025

Bench Type

Single

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 11 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 100

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRI SHAHAJI SHIVRAM BHUJBAL Since deceased through legal heirs(Legal Heir)

    Adv. VIVEK VIJAY SALUNKE 1.

  2. 2.SATISH SHAHAJI BHUJBAL

    Adv. VIVEK VIJAY SALUNKE1.

  3. 3.MUKTABAI SHAHAJI BHUJBAL

    Adv. VIVEK VIJAY SALUNKE1.

  4. 4.VAISHALI VISHNUKUMAR MANE

    Adv. VIVEK VIJAY SALUNKE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAMESH MANIK JADHAV

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 01-Jul-2026

    For Orders (Due Matters)

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri Godse

  3. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri GodseView PDF

    Case Summary: The Bombay High Court admitted a Second Appeal (pending since 2015) on three substantial questions of law: whether an appellate court could rely on a sale deed not mentioned in the original plaint; whether a mandatory injunction suit for encroachment removal without claiming possession is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; and whether the plaintiff should be relegated to file a comprehensive suit for title and possession instead. Notice was issued to the respondent returnable July 1, 2026, and ad-interim protection granted in November 2016 was continued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gauri GodseView PDF

  5. 02-May-2025

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The Bombay High Court admitted a Second Appeal (pending since 2015) on three substantial questions of law: whether an appellate court could rely on a sale deed not mentioned in the original plaint; whether a mandatory injunction suit for encroachment removal without claiming possession is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; and whether the plaintiff should be relegated to file a comprehensive suit for title and possession instead. Notice was issued to the respondent returnable July 1, 2026, and ad-interim protection granted in November 2016 was continued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case