Haribhau Satwagi Sanap vs Uddhavrao Dattatrao Nagre — 57/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Status: R and P Ready. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
R.C.A. - Civil Appeal
CNR: MHBU010014972025
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
e-Filing Number
08-12-2025
Filing Number
668/2025
Filing Date
09-12-2025
Registration No
57/2025
Registration Date
09-12-2025
Court
District and Session Court Buldhana
Judge
7-District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Haribhau Satwagi Sanap
Adv. Sadar DR
Mankarnabai Ramdas Jadhao
Adv. Sadar DR
Trimbak Ashru Manwatkar(Legal Heir)
Adv. Sadar DR3.
Bhanudas Trimbak Manwatkar
Hiraman Kashiram Rathod
Jagannath Baburao Sanap
Adv. Sadar DR
Vithoba Mhadoji Sanap(Legal Heir)
Adv. Sadar DR6.
Bhaskar Vithoba Sanap 6.
Madhukar Vithoba Sanap 6.
Anantha Vithoba Sanap 6.
Keshao Vithoba Sanap 6.
Prayagbai Devidas Doifode
Waman Bhaurao Sanap
Adv. Sadar DR
Vishwanath Mhasaji Sanap(Legal Heir)
Adv. Sadar DR8.
Abhabai Vishwanath Sanap 8.
Raju Vishwanath Sanap 8.
Ganesh Vishwanath Sanap 8.
Sangiwani Pralhad Mundhe 8.
Nandabai Rangnath Wagh
Narayan Mhasaji Sanap(Legal Heir)
Adv. Sadar DR9.
Sunil Narayan Sanap 9.
Anil Narayan Sanap 9.
Sandhya Ashok Mundhe
Gopaji Mhasaji Sanap
Adv. Sadar DR
Arun Ruplala Jadhav
Adv. Sadar DR
Shivaji Sakru Jadhav(Legal Heir)
Adv. Sadar DR12.
Krushuna Shiwaji Jadhav
Soundaji Natthu Kakad(Legal Heir)
Adv. Sadar DR13.
Ashok Soundaji Kakad
Karbhari Natthu Kakad(Legal Heir)
Adv. Sadar DR14.
Kasabai Karbhari Kakad 14.
Vishnu Karbhari Kakad
Baburao Natthu Kakad
Adv. Sadar DR
Laxman Natthuji Kakad
Adv. Sadar DR
Respondent(s)
Uddhavrao Dattatrao Nagre
Prathiba Uddhao Nagre
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 7-District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.
R and P Ready
R and P Ready
R and P Ready
R and P Ready
R and P Ready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | R and P Ready | |
| 24-04-2026 | R and P Ready | |
| 16-04-2026 | R and P Ready | |
| 27-03-2026 | R and P Ready | |
| 10-03-2026 | R and P Ready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The District Judge rejected the appellants' application seeking a stay of the judgment and decree in the underlying property suit (RCS No.78/2009) and an injunction restraining respondents from creating third-party interests. The court found no merit in the stay request, as the original judgment merely declared respondents as owners and restrained appellants from obstruction—nothing requiring execution. The court also refused the injunction, holding that lis pendence provisions adequately protect the appellants' interests and there was no evidence of respondents' intention to alienate the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District Judge rejected the appellants' application seeking a stay of the judgment and decree in the underlying property suit (RCS No.78/2009) and an injunction restraining respondents from creating third-party interests. The court found no merit in the stay request, as the original judgment merely declared respondents as owners and restrained appellants from obstruction—nothing requiring execution. The court also refused the injunction, holding that lis pendence provisions adequately protect the appellants' interests and there was no evidence of respondents' intention to alienate the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts