Ajeet Jagannath Rana vs Secretary Super Uchtam Agriculture Produce Market Committee Advocate - Dahihande V.S. — 9/2026
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: W.S. and Say. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAU130000292026
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
e-Filing Number
04-03-2026
Filing Number
30/2026
Filing Date
05-03-2026
Registration No
9/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
Corporation Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE S.D., CORPORATION COURT, AURANGABAD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ajeet Jagannath Rana
Adv. Shaikh M.B.
Shrikant Eknath Mundada
Adv. Shaikh M.B.
Sangeeta Rajendara Chandak
Adv. Shaikh M.B.
Alka Laxmidas Rana
Adv. Shaikh M.B.
Ranjana Anil Rana
Adv. Shaikh M.B.
Prajesh Anil Rana
Adv. Shaikh M.B.
Digambar Namdeo Patil
Adv. Shaikh M.B.
Mohmmad Imaduddin Mohmmed Ibraheem Died(Legal Heir)
Adv. SHAIKH MUKIN BABAMIYAN8.
Mohammed Saddam Hussain S/0 Mohmmad Imaduddin
Adv. Shaikh M.B.
Mohammed Feroz Mohmeed Yusuf
Adv. Shaikh M.B.
Rahul Laxman Bujade
Adv. Shaikh M.B.
Viquar Ahmed Abdul Majeed(Legal Heir)
Adv. SHAIKH MUKIN BABAMIYAN11.
Rabi Ahmed Viquar Ahmed
Adv. Shaikh M.B.
Shafat Ali Khan Ahmed ali Khan
Adv. Shaikh M.B.
Respondent(s)
Secretary Super Uchtam Agriculture Produce Market Committee Advocate - Dahihande V.S.
Dy Director
Adv. Padwale D.E.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE S.D., CORPORATION COURT, AURANGABAD
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 06-04-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 12-03-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 07-03-2026 | Appearance |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 9/2026 The court partly allowed the plaintiffs' application for status-quo on disputed property. The Civil Judge directed both the plaintiffs and defendant Agricultural Market Committee to maintain the property's current status until the temporary injunction application is decided. The court rejected the defendant's argument that status-quo should await their reply, finding it necessary to preserve the property to prevent defeat of the plaintiffs' injunction application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 9/2026 The court partly allowed the plaintiffs' application for status-quo on disputed property. The Civil Judge directed both the plaintiffs and defendant Agricultural Market Committee to maintain the property's current status until the temporary injunction application is decided. The court rejected the defendant's argument that status-quo should await their reply, finding it necessary to preserve the property to prevent defeat of the plaintiffs' injunction application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts