Prakash Rambhau Chitte vs Ravikumar Rameshwar Garg — 808/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: W.S. and Say. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAU070062932025
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
e-Filing Number
12-09-2025
Filing Number
4545/2025
Filing Date
15-09-2025
Registration No
808/2025
Registration Date
16-09-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Gangapur
Judge
6-JT. CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION GANGAPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Prakash Rambhau Chitte
Adv. KARHALE KISHOR RAOSAHEB
Respondent(s)
Ravikumar Rameshwar Garg
Utkarsh Ravikumar Garg
Charchit Ravikumar Garg
Mandabai Rambhau Chitte
Adv. Narode S.K.
Sanjay Rambhau Chitte
Ashok Rambhau Chitte
Circle Officer Division Bhendala
Talathi Saza kaigaon
Hearing History
Judge: 6-JT. CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION GANGAPUR
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 12-03-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 25-02-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 04-02-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 20-01-2026 | W.S. and Say |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 808/2025 Court: Civil Judge (S.D.), Gangapur, Maharashtra Order Date: 20.01.2026 Outcome: Petition DISMISSED Prakash Rambhau Chitte sought a temporary injunction preventing Respondents 1-3 (Ravikumar Rameshwar Garg and his sons) from interfering with his joint ownership and possession of agricultural land in Aurangabad. The court found that Respondents 1-3 are the lawful owners and possessors of the property through a valid sale deed, and that the petitioner's claims regarding partition and property division were not substantiated. The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 808/2025 Court: Civil Judge (S.D.), Gangapur, Maharashtra Order Date: 20.01.2026 Outcome: Petition DISMISSED Prakash Rambhau Chitte sought a temporary injunction preventing Respondents 1-3 (Ravikumar Rameshwar Garg and his sons) from interfering with his joint ownership and possession of agricultural land in Aurangabad. The court found that Respondents 1-3 are the lawful owners and possessors of the property through a valid sale deed, and that the petitioner's claims regarding partition and property division were not substantiated. The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts