Goutam Sukhdevrao Tayde vs Vinod Vasantrao Ingle Advocate - Pande P. J. — 30/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Suit,for,contineous,Permament,Injunction. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHAK090007072023
Next Hearing
01st April 2026
Filing Number
156/2023
Filing Date
31-03-2023
Registration No
30/2023
Registration Date
01-04-2023
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Murtijapur
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Goutam Sukhdevrao Tayde
Adv. Wankhade G. P.
Respondent(s)
Vinod Vasantrao Ingle Advocate - Pande P. J.
Narmadabai Ramesh Ingle
Adv. Pande P. J.
Vilas Ramesh Ingle
Adv. Pande P. J.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Murtizapur
Defence Evidence
Arguments
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 30-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS No. 30/2023 (Goutam v. Vinod) The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff established a prima-facie case of ownership and possession of the agricultural land property (S.No. 52, Block 183, Rajura Sarode, Akola District), supported by 7/12 extracts, sale deeds, and mutation entries. The court determined that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff and that he would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction were not granted. The defendant and any person acting on their behalf are permanently restrained from obstructing the plaintiff's possession of the suit property pending final disposal of the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS No. 30/2023 (Goutam v. Vinod) The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff established a prima-facie case of ownership and possession of the agricultural land property (S.No. 52, Block 183, Rajura Sarode, Akola District), supported by 7/12 extracts, sale deeds, and mutation entries. The court determined that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff and that he would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction were not granted. The defendant and any person acting on their behalf are permanently restrained from obstructing the plaintiff's possession of the suit property pending final disposal of the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts