Archana Shankar Gaikwad vs Radhakisan Bhikaji Makasare Advocate - Shelke M. B. — 25/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 22,34,38. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 15th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAH180000912022
Next Hearing
15th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
28/2022
Filing Date
13-01-2022
Registration No
25/2022
Registration Date
13-01-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Rahuri
Judge
12-Civil Judge Senior Division
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Archana Shankar Gaikwad
Adv. Bachkar B. S.
Respondent(s)
Radhakisan Bhikaji Makasare Advocate - Shelke M. B.
Malan Radhakisan Makasare
Suman Radhakisan Makasare
Balasaheb Radhakisan Makasare
Sandip Radhakisan Makasare
Alka Rajendra Dabhade
Ramesh Machhindra Ghugarkar
Prakash Dhondiram Kalhapure
Babasaheb Appasaheb Thanage
Sharad Subhash Dangat
Rajendra Vitthal Nikam
Hearing History
Judge: 12-Civil Judge Senior Division
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 26-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 29-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 11-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 18-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction under Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff, seeking partition and possession of ancestral joint family property, failed to establish a prima facie case, as the properties had already been partitioned by decree in 2000, after which defendants became absolute owners and subsequently sold portions to third parties. The court found that no injunction can be issued against the family Karta (manager) to restrain alienation of coparcenary property, and the balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction under Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff, seeking partition and possession of ancestral joint family property, failed to establish a prima facie case, as the properties had already been partitioned by decree in 2000, after which defendants became absolute owners and subsequently sold portions to third parties. The court found that no injunction can be issued against the family Karta (manager) to restrain alienation of coparcenary property, and the balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts