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
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
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
Issues
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts