Sagar Ajay Sancheti(Legal Heir) vs Ajay Kantilal Sancheti Advocate - Katole N.H. — 35/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 8,34,37,38. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 19-Jun-2026 this date has passed

Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)

CNR: MHAU050047692025

e-Filing Number

17-10-2025

Filing Number

2931/2025

Filing Date

17-Oct-2025

Registration No

35/2025

Registration Date

17-Oct-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Vaijapur

Judge

5-Jt CIVIL Judge Senior Division And Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaijapur

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 8,34,37,38
Code of Civil Procedure Section Order39Rule1and2r/wSec.151

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sagar Ajay Sancheti(Legal Heir)

    Adv. ABHAY BHARAT PRADHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ajay Kantilal Sancheti Advocate - Katole N.H.

  2. 2.Akash s/o Ajay Sancheti

  3. 3.Surekha w/o Ajay Sancheti

  4. 4.Premsing s/o Gulabsing Rajput

  5. 5.Shaikh Navaz s/o Majid Shaikh

  6. 6.Nagar urban Co-op Bank Ltd Ahmednagar

  7. 7.Nayan Enterprises Prop Vaishali Ashok Desarda

Case History

  1. 19-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 22-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Jt CIVIL Judge Senior Division And Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaijapur

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Order on T.I.View PDF

    Case Summary: Sagar Ajay Sancheti v. Ajay Kantilal Sancheti (Spl. C.S. No. 35/2025) The court rejected the plaintiff's second application for temporary injunction against defendant No.6 (a bank). The plaintiff sought to restrain the bank from taking possession of property mortgaged by defendant No.3 on 13.12.2016, claiming he held an undivided share as a legal heir. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima-facie case, that balance of convenience did not favor him, and he would not suffer irreparable loss. The court noted the 10-year delay in filing suit, suspicious circumstances regarding the plaintiff's identity and representation, and evidence that defendant No.3 was the full owner with legal right to mortgage the property under the Hindu Succession Act. The earlier interim order against defendants 1-3 remains unchanged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Jt CIVIL Judge Senior Division And Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaijapur

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Jt CIVIL Judge Senior Division And Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaijapur

  7. 05-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  8. 05-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Jt CIVIL Judge Senior Division And Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaijapur

  9. 21-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Jt CIVIL Judge Senior Division And Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaijapur

  10. 16-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Jt CIVIL Judge Senior Division And Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaijapur

  11. 27-Jan-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  12. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Jt CIVIL Judge Senior Division And Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaijapur

  13. 20-Jan-2026

    Order

    Jt CIVIL Judge Senior Division And Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaijapur

  14. 12-Dec-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    Jt CIVIL Judge Senior Division And Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaijapur

  15. 03-Dec-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    Jt CIVIL Judge Senior Division And Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaijapur

  16. 19-Nov-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    Jt CIVIL Judge Senior Division And Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaijapur

  17. 01-Nov-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  18. 01-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    Jt CIVIL Judge Senior Division And Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaijapur

  19. 27-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 17-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 35/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Sagar Ajay Sancheti v. Ajay Kantilal Sancheti (Spl. C.S. No. 35/2025) The court rejected the plaintiff's second application for temporary injunction against defendant No.6 (a bank). The plaintiff sought to restrain the bank from taking possession of property mortgaged by defendant No.3 on 13.12.2016, claiming he held an undivided share as a legal heir. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima-facie case, that balance of convenience did not favor him, and he would not suffer irreparable loss. The court noted the 10-year delay in filing suit, suspicious circumstances regarding the plaintiff's identity and representation, and evidence that defendant No.3 was the full owner with legal right to mortgage the property under the Hindu Succession Act. The earlier interim order against defendants 1-3 remains unchanged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case