Tai Dhananjay Dindore vs Dagadu Machhindra Kharat Advocate - Kshirsagar B. P. — 200233/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAH220013872024
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
499/2024
Filing Date
03-09-2024
Registration No
200233/2024
Registration Date
05-09-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Karjat
Judge
6-JT.CIVIL JUDGEJ.D. J.M.F.C.KARJATA'NAGAR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Tai Dhananjay Dindore
Adv. Anbhule J. S.
Dhananjay Gorakh Dindore
Adv. Anbhule J. S.
Respondent(s)
Dagadu Machhindra Kharat Advocate - Kshirsagar B. P.
Raju Baban Shinde
Vikas Raju Rakshe
Dnyandev Bhaguji Bhise
Nitin Bapu Bhise
Aaba Nana Ughade
Vijay Uttam Mane
Jalindar Bhanudas Pawar
Bhanudas Ekanath Pawar
Gramvikas Adhikari,Grampanchayat Rakshaswadi Bk.
Hearing History
Judge: 6-JT.CIVIL JUDGEJ.D. J.M.F.C.KARJATA'NAGAR
Issues
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Citation
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Issues | |
| 25-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 23-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 16-03-2026 | Citation | |
| 09-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary The court rejected all three interim injunction applications (Exh.5, 7, and 32) filed by plaintiffs Tai Dhananjay Dindore and spouse in their dispute over Grampanchayat property no.475 in Ahmednagar. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership and possession, noting they were not in physical possession of the property and that the property's status had allegedly changed through construction of shops before the suit was filed. Consequently, the applications for interim prohibitory injunction to restrain defendants from creating interests in the property, obstructing possession, or continuing construction were dismissed, with costs in the main cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected all three interim injunction applications (Exh.5, 7, and 32) filed by plaintiffs Tai Dhananjay Dindore and spouse in their dispute over Grampanchayat property no.475 in Ahmednagar. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership and possession, noting they were not in physical possession of the property and that the property's status had allegedly changed through construction of shops before the suit was filed. Consequently, the applications for interim prohibitory injunction to restrain defendants from creating interests in the property, obstructing possession, or continuing construction were dismissed, with costs in the main cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts