Zainuddin @ Pashu S/o Mohammad Shafi vs Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Advocate - Padwale D.E. — 1/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
Reg Dkst - Regular Execution Petition
CNR: MHAU130000042023
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
4/2023
Filing Date
04-01-2023
Registration No
1/2023
Registration Date
11-01-2023
Court
Corporation Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE S.D., CORPORATION COURT, AURANGABAD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Zainuddin @ Pashu S/o Mohammad Shafi
Adv. Quazi M.N.
Respondent(s)
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Advocate - Padwale D.E.
Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti
Adv. Jondhale S.M.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE S.D., CORPORATION COURT, AURANGABAD
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 02-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 17-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 31-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Zainuddin @ Pashu v. Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad (1/2023) Order Below Exh. 31: The court adjourned the case for evidence. Petitioner sought to execute a decree for injunction through detention of judgment debtors and property attachment; respondent denied breach. Court found evidence necessary to decide and posted the petition for evidence. Order Below Exh. 41: The application was rejected. Petitioner sought to prevent respondent from constructing a gate on the disputed property, claiming breach of prior decree. Court held that petitioner already secured relief through the perpetual injunction decree in RCS No.345/1998 and no duplicate order was necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Zainuddin @ Pashu v. Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad (1/2023) Order Below Exh. 31: The court adjourned the case for evidence. Petitioner sought to execute a decree for injunction through detention of judgment debtors and property attachment; respondent denied breach. Court found evidence necessary to decide and posted the petition for evidence. Order Below Exh. 41: The application was rejected. Petitioner sought to prevent respondent from constructing a gate on the disputed property, claiming breach of prior decree. Court held that petitioner already secured relief through the perpetual injunction decree in RCS No.345/1998 and no duplicate order was necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts