Jijabai Asaram Bomble vs Eknath Kisan Dangorde — 96/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 with 151. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAU100010112025
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
e-Filing Number
01-10-2025
Filing Number
305/2025
Filing Date
04-10-2025
Registration No
96/2025
Registration Date
06-10-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Khultabad
Judge
1-JT. CIVIL JUDGE JD AND JMFC KHULTABAD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jijabai Asaram Bomble
Adv. PURI SHIVAPRASAD DEVIDAS
Respondent(s)
Eknath Kisan Dangorde
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JT. CIVIL JUDGE JD AND JMFC KHULTABAD
Issues
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Issues |
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 16-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 19-01-2026 | Hearing |
| 08-01-2026 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 96/2025 Petitioner: Jijabai Asaram Bomble Respondent: Eknath Kisan Dangorde Court: Khultabad, Maharashtra Date: 12/03/2026 Outcome: The petition was ALLOWED. The court granted the petitioner's application for temporary injunction, restraining the respondents from selling or transferring inherited agricultural land (approximately 2 hectares in Survey No. 40/2 at Khultabad). The court found sufficient prima facie evidence that the land was ancestral property subject to inheritance partition, and that respondents were attempting unauthorized transfers to third parties in violation of the petitioner's rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 96/2025 Petitioner: Jijabai Asaram Bomble Respondent: Eknath Kisan Dangorde Court: Khultabad, Maharashtra Date: 12/03/2026 Outcome: The petition was ALLOWED. The court granted the petitioner's application for temporary injunction, restraining the respondents from selling or transferring inherited agricultural land (approximately 2 hectares in Survey No. 40/2 at Khultabad). The court found sufficient prima facie evidence that the land was ancestral property subject to inheritance partition, and that respondents were attempting unauthorized transfers to third parties in violation of the petitioner's rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts