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.

W.S. and Say Next hearing 09-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHAU130000292026

e-Filing Number

04-03-2026

Filing Number

30/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

9/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Court

Corporation Court, Aurangabad

Judge

1-CIVIL Judge S.d., Corporation Court, Aurangabad

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ajeet Jagannath Rana

    Adv. Shaikh M.B.

  2. 2.Shrikant Eknath Mundada

    Adv. Shaikh M.B.

  3. 3.Sangeeta Rajendara Chandak

    Adv. Shaikh M.B.

  4. 4.Alka Laxmidas Rana

    Adv. Shaikh M.B.

  5. 5.Ranjana Anil Rana

    Adv. Shaikh M.B.

  6. 6.Prajesh Anil Rana

    Adv. Shaikh M.B.

  7. 7.Digambar Namdeo Patil

    Adv. Shaikh M.B.

  8. 8.Mohmmad Imaduddin Mohmmed Ibraheem Died(Legal Heir)

    Adv. SHAIKH MUKIN BABAMIYAN8.

  9. 9.Mohammed Saddam Hussain S/0 Mohmmad Imaduddin

    Adv. Shaikh M.B.

  10. 10.Mohammed Feroz Mohmeed Yusuf

    Adv. Shaikh M.B.

  11. 11.Rahul Laxman Bujade

    Adv. Shaikh M.B.

  12. 12.Viquar Ahmed Abdul Majeed(Legal Heir)

    Adv. SHAIKH MUKIN BABAMIYAN11.

  13. 13.Rabi Ahmed Viquar Ahmed

    Adv. Shaikh M.B.

  14. 14.Shafat Ali Khan Ahmed ali Khan

    Adv. Shaikh M.B.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Secretary Super Uchtam Agriculture Produce Market Committee Advocate - Dahihande V.S.

  2. 2.Dy Director

    Adv. Padwale D.E.

Case History

  1. 09-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 20-Apr-2026

    W.S. and Say

    CIVIL Judge S.d., Corporation Court, Aurangabad

  3. 06-Apr-2026

    W.S. and Say

    CIVIL Judge S.d., Corporation Court, Aurangabad

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    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.

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    W.S. and Say

    CIVIL Judge S.d., Corporation Court, Aurangabad

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  7. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 9/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case