Anandrao Baburao Pol vs Kiran Murlidhar Kulkarni Advocate - Kulkarni N. P. — 200285/2015
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 343837. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAH230006052015
Next Hearing
28th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200613/2015
Filing Date
07-08-2015
Registration No
200285/2015
Registration Date
07-08-2015
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Shrigonda
Judge
10-2nd Jt CJJD JMFC Shrigonda
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anandrao Baburao Pol
Respondent(s)
Kiran Murlidhar Kulkarni Advocate - Kulkarni N. P.
Mahesh Murlidhar Kulkarni
Gitanjali Murlidhar Kulkarni
Kamal Murlidhar Kulkarni
Hearing History
Judge: 10-2nd Jt CJJD JMFC Shrigonda
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Hearing | |
| 09-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 11-02-2026 | Hearing | |
| 14-01-2026 | Hearing | |
| 15-12-2025 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The plaintiff's interim application seeking temporary injunction to restrain defendants from obstructing his peaceful possession of agricultural property (Gat no. 26) was rejected. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for an oral sale agreement allegedly made in 1988 between the defendants' father (Muralidhar) and the plaintiff, as the 1988 sale deed only involved Muralidhar's brother Vasant and grandmother Yashodabai—not Muralidhar himself. Since no valid prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss was proven, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs (Order dated 30.03.2024). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The plaintiff's interim application seeking temporary injunction to restrain defendants from obstructing his peaceful possession of agricultural property (Gat no. 26) was rejected. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for an oral sale agreement allegedly made in 1988 between the defendants' father (Muralidhar) and the plaintiff, as the 1988 sale deed only involved Muralidhar's brother Vasant and grandmother Yashodabai—not Muralidhar himself. Since no valid prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss was proven, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs (Order dated 30.03.2024). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts