Suresh Pandurang Kedar vs Pandurang Bajirav Shirsath Advocate - Palwe D. S. — 310/2019
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 37. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHAH200013612019
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
384/2019
Filing Date
23-09-2019
Registration No
310/2019
Registration Date
23-09-2019
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pathardi
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C PATHARDI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Suresh Pandurang Kedar
Adv. Welde V. D.
Respondent(s)
Pandurang Bajirav Shirsath Advocate - Palwe D. S.
Bhimrav Bajirav Shirsath
Adv. Palwe D. S.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C PATHARDI
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 16-10-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 18-08-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 18-06-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary The court allowed the plaintiff's petition (Order No. 5) in this property dispute case (Regular Civil Suit No. 310/2019). The plaintiff's application for mandatory injunction was granted, directing the defendant to refrain from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the property. The court ruled that the plaintiff established rightful ownership through proper documentation and that the defendant's claims lacked merit, ordering the defendant not to obstruct the plaintiff's enjoyment of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court allowed the plaintiff's petition (Order No. 5) in this property dispute case (Regular Civil Suit No. 310/2019). The plaintiff's application for mandatory injunction was granted, directing the defendant to refrain from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the property. The court ruled that the plaintiff established rightful ownership through proper documentation and that the defendant's claims lacked merit, ordering the defendant not to obstruct the plaintiff's enjoyment of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts