Jayshree Vinodchandra Saraf vs Jagdish Rameshchandra Saraf Advocate - Shinde Y.R. — 78/2023
Case under Specific Relief (Amendment) Act Section 37. Status: Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAU090005862023
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
e-Filing Number
23-02-2023
Filing Number
142/2023
Filing Date
23-02-2023
Registration No
78/2023
Registration Date
23-02-2023
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Paithan
Judge
3-JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C. PAITHAN
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jayshree Vinodchandra Saraf
Adv. Chavan Dhananjay
Sachin Vinodchandra Saraf
Nilesh Vinodchandra Saraf
Respondent(s)
Jagdish Rameshchandra Saraf Advocate - Shinde Y.R.
Shobha Jagdish Saraf
Adv. Shinde Y.R.
Vikas Ashok Pakhre
Jayshree Sopan Pakhre
Sunita Mahendra Saraf
Adv. Shinde Y.R.
Akashy Mahendra Saraf
Adv. Shinde Y.R.
Shweta Mahendra Saraf
Adv. Shinde Y.R.
Shila Shrikumar Shaha
Sandeep Pramodchandra Shroff
Swapnil Pramodchandra Shroff
Shashikalaben Nanubhai Javheri
Chhaya Alias Madalsaben Bhagwati Javheri
Vijayaben Pareshbhai Soni
Chandrakant Devidas Parekh
Jayshreeben Jayeshkumar Parikh
Hareshbhai Thakorlal Parekh
Dilipkumar Thakorlal Parekh
Mukeshbhai Thakorlal Parekh
Shilaben Narayanbhai Parekh
Alkaben Sunlibhai Parekh
Hearing History
Judge: 3-JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C. PAITHAN
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 12-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 10-02-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 31-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 16-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS No. 78/2023 Outcome: Application for temporary injunction rejected. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' request to restrain defendants from alienating agricultural property in Aurangabad, finding that the disputed land had already been partitioned among family members and was not joint family property. The court determined that after partition, the property became self-acquired property of Saraswatibai, who lawfully disposed of it to her grandsons. The court also found that plaintiffs suppressed material facts (admitting partition in a prior case RCS No. 80/2018) and failed to approach with clean hands, making defendants—not plaintiffs—entitled to protection from irreparable loss. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS No. 78/2023 Outcome: Application for temporary injunction rejected. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' request to restrain defendants from alienating agricultural property in Aurangabad, finding that the disputed land had already been partitioned among family members and was not joint family property. The court determined that after partition, the property became self-acquired property of Saraswatibai, who lawfully disposed of it to her grandsons. The court also found that plaintiffs suppressed material facts (admitting partition in a prior case RCS No. 80/2018) and failed to approach with clean hands, making defendants—not plaintiffs—entitled to protection from irreparable loss. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts