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

Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

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

Specific Relief (Amendment) Act Section 37
Code of Civil Procedure Section 39
Ia/1/2023 Classification : Interrogatories Section Jayshree Vinodchandra SarafJagdish Rameshchandra Saraf

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

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

10-02-2026
Order on T.I.

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court, Paithan All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case