Sangita Popat Jadhav vs Kalpana Bhausaheb Pawal Advocate - Shaikh S.M. — 1431/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 22. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 07th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHBI160022132022
Next Hearing
07th July 2026
Filing Number
1763/2022
Filing Date
19-11-2022
Registration No
1431/2022
Registration Date
19-11-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Shirur
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC SHIRUR-K
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sangita Popat Jadhav
Adv. Adv.K.P.Dongere
Respondent(s)
Kalpana Bhausaheb Pawal Advocate - Shaikh S.M.
Bhausaheb Dashrath Paval
Adv. Adv.D.J.Kothul
Nanda Rajendra Mengade
Adv. Adv.D.J.Kothul
Ranjana Ramnath Jadhav
Adv. Adv.D.J.Kothul
Mira Dashrath Paval
Adv. Adv.D.J.Kothul
Radhabai Dashrath Paval
Adv. Adv.D.J.Kothul
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC SHIRUR-K
Evidence
Compliance
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Compliance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Compliance |
| 29-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 28-11-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 31-10-2025 | Compliance |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition filed by Sangeeta against Kalpana and others seeking partition of ancestral joint family property (consisting of plots 88-89 in Mauze Arvi, Shirur Kasara, Beed district) and a temporary injunction was allowed. The court granted an interim order restraining defendants 1, 7-9 from transferring, selling, gifting, mortgaging, or creating third-party rights over the disputed property until final judgment, finding the petitioner has established a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience in her favor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition filed by Sangeeta against Kalpana and others seeking partition of ancestral joint family property (consisting of plots 88-89 in Mauze Arvi, Shirur Kasara, Beed district) and a temporary injunction was allowed. The court granted an interim order restraining defendants 1, 7-9 from transferring, selling, gifting, mortgaging, or creating third-party rights over the disputed property until final judgment, finding the petitioner has established a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience in her favor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts