Balvir Rupdas Adhikari vs Sunanda Ramdas Vaishnav Advocate - Kangne V. K. — 4/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96,. Status: Steps. Next hearing: 06th May 2026.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHAH070000502025
Next Hearing
06th May 2026
e-Filing Number
09-01-2025
Filing Number
17/2025
Filing Date
09-01-2025
Registration No
4/2025
Registration Date
09-01-2025
Court
District and Session Court , Sangamner
Judge
7-Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Balvir Rupdas Adhikari
Adv. Thorat S. P.
Raghuvir Purushottam Adhikari Bairagi
Respondent(s)
Sunanda Ramdas Vaishnav Advocate - Kangne V. K.
Madhav Laxman Bairagi
Shakuntala Shankar Bairagi
Mangla Ashok Vaishnav
Usha Nandkumar Vaishnav
Nirmala Namdev Gavad
Shatakshi Hemant Risbud
Madhuri Akhilesh Sharma
Duyyam Nibandhak Saheb
Duyyam Nibandhak Saheb 2
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Steps
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Steps | |
| 09-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 27-02-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 12-02-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 23-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The application by appellants Balveer Adhikari and another to stay the trial court's injunction order was rejected. The court found that the trial court's order was legally sound based on evidence showing respondent no. 1 (Sunanda Vaishnaw) has proven possession of the ancestral suit properties since 1992, and the appellants admitted this possession and failed to claim their own possession or seek partition. Therefore, there was no valid reason to stay the injunction restraining the appellants from obstructing the respondent's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The application by appellants Balveer Adhikari and another to stay the trial court's injunction order was rejected. The court found that the trial court's order was legally sound based on evidence showing respondent no. 1 (Sunanda Vaishnaw) has proven possession of the ancestral suit properties since 1992, and the appellants admitted this possession and failed to claim their own possession or seek partition. Therefore, there was no valid reason to stay the injunction restraining the appellants from obstructing the respondent's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts