Ramesh Raghuntharo Kamble vs Kishan Pandurang Mhaske Advocate - Kurhe R.H. — 53/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section n. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHAU130001022023
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
109/2023
Filing Date
16-10-2023
Registration No
53/2023
Registration Date
18-10-2023
Court
Corporation Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE S.D., CORPORATION COURT, AURANGABAD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramesh Raghuntharo Kamble
Adv. Patil S.S.
Respondent(s)
Kishan Pandurang Mhaske Advocate - Kurhe R.H.
Sundar Panduran Mhaske(Legal Heir)
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad
Adv. Patni M.B.
The Assistant Director of Town Planning
Adv. Patni M.B.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE S.D., CORPORATION COURT, AURANGABAD
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 12-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 18-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 09-02-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 07-01-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: The court rejected petitioner Ramesh Raghuntharo Kamble's application for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC against respondents Kishan Pandurang Mhaske and Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. The court held that since the application sought perpetual and mandatory injunction rather than merely temporary relief, it was not an interlocutory application and therefore ordered it to be decided along with the main plaint on its merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The court rejected petitioner Ramesh Raghuntharo Kamble's application for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC against respondents Kishan Pandurang Mhaske and Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. The court held that since the application sought perpetual and mandatory injunction rather than merely temporary relief, it was not an interlocutory application and therefore ordered it to be decided along with the main plaint on its merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts