Rahul Ramnath Khaire vs Chetan Shivnath Khaire Advocate - Shinde B.S. — 625/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHAU070030272025

Issues

Next Hearing

12th June 2026

e-Filing Number

21-04-2025

Filing Number

2233/2025

Filing Date

21-04-2025

Registration No

625/2025

Registration Date

21-04-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Gangapur

Judge

5-JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C., GANGAPUR

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 38

Petitioner(s)

Rahul Ramnath Khaire

Adv. Raut M.A.

Ravindra Ramnath Khaire

Respondent(s)

Chetan Shivnath Khaire Advocate - Shinde B.S.

Ketan Shivnath Khaire

Anita Shivnath Khaire

Shivnath Ramnath Khaire

Hearing History

Judge: 5-JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C., GANGAPUR

09-04-2026

Issues

12-03-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

12-01-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

02-01-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

11-11-2025

Argument on Exh.____Unready

Interim Orders

09-04-2026
Order on T.I.

Case Summary: RCS 625/2025 Outcome: Temporary injunction application rejected. Plaintiffs Rahul and Ravindra Khaire sought to restrain defendants from obstructing their access to a jointly-owned well on shared agricultural land. The court dismissed the application, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury. Critically, the court noted that other co-sharers (Archana and Amit Gunjal) with rights in the well were not made parties to the suit, making any injunction order potentially unenforceable and inequitable. Costs reserved for final judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS 625/2025 Outcome: Temporary injunction application rejected. Plaintiffs Rahul and Ravindra Khaire sought to restrain defendants from obstructing their access to a jointly-owned well on shared agricultural land. The court dismissed the application, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury. Critically, the court noted that other co-sharers (Archana and Amit Gunjal) with rights in the well were not made parties to the suit, making any injunction order potentially unenforceable and inequitable. Costs reserved for final judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court, Gangapur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case