Pramod Chandrakant pawar vs Chandrakant hari Pawar Advocate - Nagwade B. A. — 53/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHAH230009602021
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
790/2021
Filing Date
12-11-2021
Registration No
53/2021
Registration Date
12-11-2021
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Shrigonda
Judge
5-Jt. Civil Judge S. D. Shrigonda
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pramod Chandrakant pawar
Adv. Mandge D.T.
Respondent(s)
Chandrakant hari Pawar Advocate - Nagwade B. A.
Jayshree Chandrakant Pawar
Adv. Nagwade B. A.
Dattatray Chandrakant pawar
Pushpa Ravindra Shinde
Yashoda Sudam Parkhe
Rajjak Dagadubhai Mulani
Baban Haribhau Pawar
Rajendra Baban Pawar
Suresh Baban Pawar
Kalpana Suresh Pawar
Maruti Hari Pawar
Sangita Maruti Pawar
Vikram Maruti Pawar
Malhari Rangnath Dhawade
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Jt. Civil Judge S. D. Shrigonda
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 17-01-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 18-11-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 11-09-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 07-07-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY The court rejected the defendants' application for temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from encroachment. The judge found that defendants No. 1 and 2 failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss necessary for injunction relief. Notably, the court held that the plaintiff, being the son and Class-I heir of defendants No. 1 and 2, is a co-sharer in the suit property since partition occurred only between defendant No. 1 and his brothers (not among his children). Costs awarded in cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY The court rejected the defendants' application for temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from encroachment. The judge found that defendants No. 1 and 2 failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss necessary for injunction relief. Notably, the court held that the plaintiff, being the son and Class-I heir of defendants No. 1 and 2, is a co-sharer in the suit property since partition occurred only between defendant No. 1 and his brothers (not among his children). Costs awarded in 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