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.

W.S. and Say Next hearing 15-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHAU070062932025

e-Filing Number

12-09-2025

Filing Number

4545/2025

Filing Date

15-Sep-2025

Registration No

808/2025

Registration Date

16-Sep-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Gangapur

Judge

6-Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 38

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Prakash Rambhau Chitte

    Adv. KARHALE KISHOR RAOSAHEB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ravikumar Rameshwar Garg

  2. 2.Utkarsh Ravikumar Garg

  3. 3.Charchit Ravikumar Garg

  4. 4.Mandabai Rambhau Chitte

    Adv. Narode S.K.

  5. 5.Sanjay Rambhau Chitte

  6. 6.Ashok Rambhau Chitte

  7. 7.Circle Officer Division Bhendala

  8. 8.Talathi Saza kaigaon

Case History

  1. 15-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    W.S. and Say

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    W.S. and Say

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  4. 25-Feb-2026

    W.S. and Say

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  5. 04-Feb-2026

    W.S. and Say

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  6. 20-Jan-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    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.

  7. 20-Jan-2026

    W.S. and Say

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  8. 08-Jan-2026

    Order

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  9. 22-Dec-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  10. 16-Dec-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  11. 08-Dec-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  12. 08-Dec-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  13. 25-Nov-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  14. 25-Nov-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  15. 13-Nov-2025

    W.S. and Say

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  16. 31-Oct-2025

    W.S. and Say

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  17. 27-Oct-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  18. 27-Oct-2025

    W.S. and Say

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  19. 10-Oct-2025

    W.S. and Say

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  20. 29-Sep-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  21. 29-Sep-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    Jt. CIVIL Judge Senior Division Gangapur

  22. 16-Sep-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  23. 16-Sep-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  24. 16-Sep-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  25. 16-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 15-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 808/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case