Radhakisan Kashinath Deshmukh vs Mukesh Dnyaneshwar Misal Advocate - Dixit S. M. — 757/2019
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 5,37,38. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHAH080013662019
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1244/2019
Filing Date
04-07-2019
Registration No
757/2019
Registration Date
04-07-2019
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Sangamner
Judge
9-2nd Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Radhakisan Kashinath Deshmukh
Adv. Kale N. P.
Sunil Raosaheb Deshmukh
Babasaheb Govind Deshmukh
Govindrao Vittharao Deshmukh
Gulab Sukhdeo Deshmukh
Sambhaji Bhausaheb Deshmukh
Respondent(s)
Mukesh Dnyaneshwar Misal Advocate - Dixit S. M.
Hearing History
Judge: 9-2nd Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 25-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 02-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant and anyone claiming through him are restrained from carrying out any construction on the disputed agricultural property (Survey No. 35/1) until the suit is disposed of. The court found that plaintiffs established a prima facie case, the balance of convenience favored them, and they would suffer irreparable loss if construction continued, particularly since the defendant's claim rested on an unregistered agreement of sale with no corresponding sale deed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant and anyone claiming through him are restrained from carrying out any construction on the disputed agricultural property (Survey No. 35/1) until the suit is disposed of. The court found that plaintiffs established a prima facie case, the balance of convenience favored them, and they would suffer irreparable loss if construction continued, particularly since the defendant's claim rested on an unregistered agreement of sale with no corresponding sale deed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts