Lilabai Chhaban Gadekar vs Rambhabai Uttam Dhavle — 202/2024

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 22. Status: Dismissal Order. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHBI160004442024

Dismissal Order

Next Hearing

11th June 2026

e-Filing Number

08-04-2024

Filing Number

312/2024

Filing Date

15-04-2024

Registration No

202/2024

Registration Date

16-04-2024

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Shirur

Judge

1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC SHIRUR-K

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 22
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section order39 Ru 1,2 U/s 151

Petitioner(s)

Lilabai Chhaban Gadekar

Adv. BADE BAPURAO SHRIMANT

Sindhu Kashinath Kokate

Adv. BADE BAPURAO SHRIMANT

Respondent(s)

Rambhabai Uttam Dhavle

Baban Uttam Dhavle

Sadashiv Uttam Dhavle

Hearing History

Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC SHIRUR-K

12-03-2026

Dismissal Order

12-01-2026

Evidence

06-11-2025

Evidence

28-08-2025

Evidence

26-06-2025

Evidence

Interim Orders

03-02-2025
Order on T.I.

Summary The petition filed by Lilabai and others against Rambabai and others seeking a temporary injunction was allowed/granted. The court issued a temporary restraining order (injunction) against defendants 1-3 prohibiting them from transferring, selling, mortgaging, donating, or creating any third-party claims on the disputed ancestral property pending final judgment in the case. The court found the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favor, and risk of irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The petition filed by Lilabai and others against Rambabai and others seeking a temporary injunction was allowed/granted. The court issued a temporary restraining order (injunction) against defendants 1-3 prohibiting them from transferring, selling, mortgaging, donating, or creating any third-party claims on the disputed ancestral property pending final judgment in the case. The court found the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favor, and risk of irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Shirur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case