Gajanan Pralhad Parihar vs Kisan Bhagwan Shingne Advocate - Muley AT — 2/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 104,43. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING on 02nd May 2026.
M.C.A. - Misc.Civil Appeal
CNR: MHBU010000192021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
16/2021
Filing Date
05-01-2021
Registration No
2/2021
Registration Date
05-01-2021
Court
District and Session Court Buldhana
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Buldana
Decision Date
02nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gajanan Pralhad Parihar
Adv. Sonalkar SR
Respondent(s)
Kisan Bhagwan Shingne Advocate - Muley AT
Kamal Dagadu Chavan
Santosh Dagadu Chavan
Bhagwat Dagadu Chavan
Aasha Prabhakar Sarkate
Sharda Ganesh Gaikwad
Sarla Ramesh Kale
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Buldana
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Disposed | |
| 13-04-2026 | Judgment | |
| 01-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 24-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready | |
| 10-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Principal District Judge, Buldana dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging the trial court's rejection of a temporary injunction application. The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience, as Section 41(a) of the Specific Relief Act prohibits restraining judicial proceedings; additionally, the 1992 decree underlying the execution proceeding had attained finality through exhaustion of all legal remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The Principal District Judge, Buldana dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging the trial court's rejection of a temporary injunction application. The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience, as Section 41(a) of the Specific Relief Act prohibits restraining judicial proceedings; additionally, the 1992 decree underlying the execution proceeding had attained finality through exhaustion of all legal remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts