Nitin Sakharam Shinde vs Mahadeo Kondiba Shinde Advocate - Gite K.B. — 1600069/2012
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section SuitforDeclaratationofOwnershipPerpetualInjunction. Status: Additional Issues. Next hearing: 02nd July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHBI150002082012
Next Hearing
02nd July 2026
Filing Number
1600069/2012
Filing Date
22-03-2012
Registration No
1600069/2012
Registration Date
22-03-2012
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Patoda
Judge
2-Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. PATODA.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nitin Sakharam Shinde
Adv. Shaikh S.M.
Satish Sakharam Shinde
Respondent(s)
Mahadeo Kondiba Shinde Advocate - Gite K.B.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. PATODA.
Additional Issues
Additional Issues
Additional Issues
Additional Issues
Additional Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Additional Issues |
| 05-02-2026 | Additional Issues |
| 22-01-2026 | Additional Issues |
| 02-01-2026 | Additional Issues |
| 05-12-2025 | Additional Issues |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case: R.C.S. No. 69/2012 | Court: Joint Civil Judge, Patoda | Date: 19.03.2021 Outcome: The court allowed the application for interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant and his agents are restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the suit land (Survey No. 16/2/AA, measuring 4H 22R) in village Sautada until the final disposal of the case. The court found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored them, and irreparable loss would result without the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: R.C.S. No. 69/2012 | Court: Joint Civil Judge, Patoda | Date: 19.03.2021 Outcome: The court allowed the application for interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant and his agents are restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the suit land (Survey No. 16/2/AA, measuring 4H 22R) in village Sautada until the final disposal of the case. The court found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored them, and irreparable loss would result without the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts