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.

Steps Next hearing 06-May-2026 this date has passed

R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal

CNR: MHAH070000502025

e-Filing Number

09-01-2025

Filing Number

17/2025

Filing Date

09-Jan-2025

Registration No

4/2025

Registration Date

09-Jan-2025

Court

District and Session Court , Sangamner

Judge

7-Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Balvir Rupdas Adhikari

    Adv. Thorat S. P.

  2. 2.Raghuvir Purushottam Adhikari Bairagi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sunanda Ramdas Vaishnav Advocate - Kangne V. K.

  2. 2.Madhav Laxman Bairagi

  3. 3.Shakuntala Shankar Bairagi

  4. 4.Mangla Ashok Vaishnav

  5. 5.Usha Nandkumar Vaishnav

  6. 6.Nirmala Namdev Gavad

  7. 7.Shatakshi Hemant Risbud

  8. 8.Madhuri Akhilesh Sharma

  9. 9.Duyyam Nibandhak Saheb

  10. 10.Duyyam Nibandhak Saheb 2

Case History

  1. 06-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    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.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Steps

    Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Order on Exh

    Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  6. 12-Feb-2026

    Order on Exh

    Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  7. 23-Jan-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  8. 09-Jan-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  9. 22-Dec-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  10. 08-Dec-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  11. 20-Nov-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  12. 06-Oct-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  13. 03-Sep-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  14. 11-Aug-2025

    Ex-Parte Order

    Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

  15. 19-Jun-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge Sangamner

  16. 24-Apr-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge Sangamner

  17. 20-Mar-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge Sangamner

  18. 27-Feb-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge Sangamner

  19. 07-Feb-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge Sangamner

  20. 16-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 09-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case