STATE OF MAHARASHTRA through p s dindrud vs Rama @ Sunil Sakharam More and others Advocate - Kulkarni V.A. — 188/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 435506,34. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHBI120014772021
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
715/2021
Filing Date
18-12-2021
Registration No
188/2021
Registration Date
18-12-2021
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Dharur
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC DHARUR.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA through p s dindrud
Adv. APp
Respondent(s)
Rama @ Sunil Sakharam More and others Advocate - Kulkarni V.A.
Shindu Rama @ Sunil More
Omkar Rama @ Sunil More
Shubham @ Bhaiya Rama @ sunil More
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC DHARUR.
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 08-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-12-2025 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction against defendants to prevent obstruction of the plaintiff's right of way across the disputed property. The court found that the Tahsildar's order of July 21, 2020, properly demarcated a 4-foot-wide passage through the property, and defendants' use of this path for agricultural purposes does not constitute unlawful interference. The plaintiff's appeal was rejected as the court determined no irreparable injury warranting interim relief had been established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction against defendants to prevent obstruction of the plaintiff's right of way across the disputed property. The court found that the Tahsildar's order of July 21, 2020, properly demarcated a 4-foot-wide passage through the property, and defendants' use of this path for agricultural purposes does not constitute unlawful interference. The plaintiff's appeal was rejected as the court determined no irreparable injury warranting interim relief had been established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts