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
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
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
Dismissal Order
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 12-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 28-08-2025 | Evidence |
| 26-06-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts