BABAN SUKHARAM KHEKADE, AND ANOTHER KR LULE, VR MISHRA, ,SUDHEER SHRIHARI VODITEL,NAMIT RAM KANUNGO,KAUSTUBH R LULE vs WASUDEO KITBAJI PANDHRAM Advocate - MANISH RAJENDRA JOHARAPURKAR, FOR/R-1 — SA/446/2013

Case under C.p.c.- (Non-interlocutory Order). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 28-Oct-2013

CNR: HCBM040242122013

Filing Number

SA/18541/2013

Filing Date

11-Oct-2013

Registration No

SA/446/2013

Registration Date

25-Oct-2013

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

Bench Type

Single

Category

SUITS ( 38 )

Sub-Category

OTHER ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BABAN SUKHARAM KHEKADE, AND ANOTHER KR LULE, VR MISHRA, ,SUDHEER SHRIHARI VODITEL,NAMIT RAM KANUNGO,KAUSTUBH R LULE

  2. 2.PADMAKAR SUKHRAM KHEKADE

    Adv. SUDHEER SHRIHARI VODITEL NAMIT RAM KANUNGO KAUSTUBH R LULE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.WASUDEO KITBAJI PANDHRAM Advocate - MANISH RAJENDRA JOHARAPURKAR, FOR/R-1

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo JoshiView PDF

    The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the trial court and appellate court's concurrent findings that the respondent/plaintiff was placed in possession of the suit property under a contractual agreement. The court found no substantial question of law warranting reconsideration, as both lower courts had properly appreciated evidence and confirmed the decree for perpetual injunction restraining defendants from disturbing possession without due process of law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Apr-2026

    Part Heard (Civil Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Rule Returnable And Fixed Dated Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

  5. 09-Apr-2026

    For Orders-

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

  6. 21-Nov-2023

    For (Final Hearing)

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar

  7. 30-Aug-2022

    For Final Hearing -

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar

  8. 06-Oct-2015

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Z.A. HaqView PDF

  9. 06-Oct-2015

    Notification -

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq

  10. 08-Jun-2015

    Ready Matter

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq

  11. 08-Jun-2015

    Notification -

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.V. Nirgude

  12. 26-Mar-2015

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.V. NirgudeView PDF

  13. 26-Mar-2015

    Private Paper Book Not Filed

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.V. Nirgude

  14. 17-Apr-2014

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.P. BhangaleView PDF

  15. 17-Apr-2014

    For Admission - After Notice

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.P. Bhangale

  16. 15-Apr-2014

    For Admission - After Notice [Civil Side Matters]

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.P. Bhangale

  17. 27-Mar-2014

    For Admission - After Notice

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.P. Bhangale

  18. 24-Mar-2014

    For Admission - After Notice [Civil Side Matters]

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.P. Bhangale

  19. 18-Mar-2014

    For Admission - After Notice [Civil Side Matters]

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.P. Bhangale

  20. 10-Feb-2014

    For Admission - After Notice [Civil Side Matters]

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.P. Bhangale

  21. 03-Feb-2014

    For Admission - After Notice [Civil Side Matters]

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.P. Bhangale

  22. 22-Jan-2014

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M.T. JoshiView PDF

  23. 22-Jan-2014

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M.T. Joshi

  24. 11-Dec-2013

    Fresh Admission ( CIVIL Side Matters )

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sunil B. Shukre

  25. 28-Oct-2013

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sunil B. ShukreView PDF

  26. 28-Oct-2013

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 11-Oct-2013

    Case filed

    Registration No. SA/446/2013

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the trial court and appellate court's concurrent findings that the respondent/plaintiff was placed in possession of the suit property under a contractual agreement. The court found no substantial question of law warranting reconsideration, as both lower courts had properly appreciated evidence and confirmed the decree for perpetual injunction restraining defendants from disturbing possession without due process of law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case