Amol Sunil Kshirsagar vs Dadasaheb Pandharinath Dhole Advocate - Borude S. D. — 25/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38,. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 05th May 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHAH230003532021
Next Hearing
05th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
320/2021
Filing Date
17-06-2021
Registration No
25/2021
Registration Date
17-06-2021
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Shrigonda
Judge
11-Civil Judge Senior Division Shrigonda
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Amol Sunil Kshirsagar
Adv. Acharya R. K.
Pravin Sunil Kshirsagar
Adv. Acharya R. K.
Respondent(s)
Dadasaheb Pandharinath Dhole Advocate - Borude S. D.
Hearing History
Judge: 11-Civil Judge Senior Division Shrigonda
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 20-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 25-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case: SPL.C.S. No. 25/2021 | Court: Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrigonda | Date: 20/09/2022 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. The judge held that the restrictive condition in the 2013 sale deed—requiring the defendant to sell the property only back to the plaintiffs—violates Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act and is therefore void. Since the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss, the application was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: SPL.C.S. No. 25/2021 | Court: Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrigonda | Date: 20/09/2022 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. The judge held that the restrictive condition in the 2013 sale deed—requiring the defendant to sell the property only back to the plaintiffs—violates Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act and is therefore void. Since the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss, the application was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts