Abedga Begam Chandsaheb Bagwan vs Manoj Sakharam Malekar Advocate - Kothule H.S. — 73/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38,39. Status: List of Witness. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHBI160001912021
Next Hearing
25th June 2026
Filing Number
115/2021
Filing Date
04-02-2021
Registration No
73/2021
Registration Date
04-02-2021
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Shirur
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC SHIRUR-K
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Abedga Begam Chandsaheb Bagwan
Adv. Dhakne S.T.
Respondent(s)
Manoj Sakharam Malekar Advocate - Kothule H.S.
Dhanraj Sakharam Malekar
Adv. Kothule H.S.
Sakharam Natha Malekar
Adv. Kothule H.S.
Mahadev Ashruba Bhosale
Dynoba Bhaurao pardeshi
Mandabai Sakharam malekar
Ramesh Namdev Shinde
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC SHIRUR-K
List of Witness
List of Witness
Issues
Issues
Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | List of Witness |
| 12-03-2026 | List of Witness |
| 29-01-2026 | Issues |
| 16-12-2025 | Issues |
| 27-10-2025 | Issues |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case: Civil Suit No. 73/2021 (Shirur Tahasil, Beed District, Maharashtra) Date: 09/12/2021 The plaintiff's application for interim relief under CPC Rule 39(1) & (2) seeking to restrain defendants from trespassing on disputed land and constructing unauthorized structures has been admitted for final hearing. The court found the plaintiff established prima facie possession of the property and balance of convenience favors granting the relief. The defendants' application for interim relief has been rejected as defendant no. 6 failed to appear despite notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: Civil Suit No. 73/2021 (Shirur Tahasil, Beed District, Maharashtra) Date: 09/12/2021 The plaintiff's application for interim relief under CPC Rule 39(1) & (2) seeking to restrain defendants from trespassing on disputed land and constructing unauthorized structures has been admitted for final hearing. The court found the plaintiff established prima facie possession of the property and balance of convenience favors granting the relief. The defendants' application for interim relief has been rejected as defendant no. 6 failed to appear despite notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts