Maroti S/o Vithoba Gadekar vs Raibhan S/o Rama Gadekar — 28/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHAU110001832023

Evidence

Next Hearing

11th June 2026

Filing Number

36/2023

Filing Date

14-02-2023

Registration No

28/2023

Registration Date

14-02-2023

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Phulambri

Judge

2-Jt. Civil Judge JD and JMFC, Phulambri

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 2

Petitioner(s)

Maroti S/o Vithoba Gadekar

Adv. Gaikwad S.S.

Respondent(s)

Raibhan S/o Rama Gadekar

Parvatabai W/o Vishnu Gadekar

Raghunath S/o Govinda Gadekar

Bhaguba S/o Govinda Gadekar

Sushiabai W/o Rajaram Gadekar

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge JD and JMFC, Phulambri

20-04-2026

Evidence

12-03-2026

Evidence

06-02-2026

Evidence

21-01-2026

Evidence

07-01-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

12-08-2023
Order on T.I.

Case Summary: 28/2023 Maroti S/o Vithoba Gadekar v. Raibhan S/o Rama Gadekar and Others Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court ruled that the petitioner (Maroti) failed to establish the three essential elements required for temporary injunction relief. The court found that the petitioner lacked prima facie rights to the disputed land and could not demonstrate irreparable harm warranting judicial intervention. Consequently, the interim order (Order 5) is vacated and the case stands dismissed with each party bearing its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 28/2023 Maroti S/o Vithoba Gadekar v. Raibhan S/o Rama Gadekar and Others Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court ruled that the petitioner (Maroti) failed to establish the three essential elements required for temporary injunction relief. The court found that the petitioner lacked prima facie rights to the disputed land and could not demonstrate irreparable harm warranting judicial intervention. Consequently, the interim order (Order 5) is vacated and the case stands dismissed with each party bearing its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court , Phulambri All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case