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 and P Ready Next hearing 24-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.A. - Civil Appeal

CNR: MHBU010014972025

e-Filing Number

08-12-2025

Filing Number

668/2025

Filing Date

09-Dec-2025

Registration No

57/2025

Registration Date

09-Dec-2025

Court

District and Session Court Buldhana

Judge

7-District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Haribhau Satwagi Sanap

    Adv. Sadar DR

  2. 2.Mankarnabai Ramdas Jadhao

    Adv. Sadar DR

  3. 3.Trimbak Ashru Manwatkar(Legal Heir)

    Adv. Sadar DR3.

  4. 4.Bhanudas Trimbak Manwatkar

  5. 5.Hiraman Kashiram Rathod

  6. 6.Jagannath Baburao Sanap

    Adv. Sadar DR

  7. 7.Vithoba Mhadoji Sanap(Legal Heir)

    Adv. Sadar DR6.

  8. 8.Bhaskar Vithoba Sanap 6.

  9. 9.Madhukar Vithoba Sanap 6.

  10. 10.Anantha Vithoba Sanap 6.

  11. 11.Keshao Vithoba Sanap 6.

  12. 12.Prayagbai Devidas Doifode

  13. 13.Waman Bhaurao Sanap

    Adv. Sadar DR

  14. 14.Vishwanath Mhasaji Sanap(Legal Heir)

    Adv. Sadar DR8.

  15. 15.Abhabai Vishwanath Sanap 8.

  16. 16.Raju Vishwanath Sanap 8.

  17. 17.Ganesh Vishwanath Sanap 8.

  18. 18.Sangiwani Pralhad Mundhe 8.

  19. 19.Nandabai Rangnath Wagh

  20. 20.Narayan Mhasaji Sanap(Legal Heir)

    Adv. Sadar DR9.

  21. 21.Sunil Narayan Sanap 9.

  22. 22.Anil Narayan Sanap 9.

  23. 23.Sandhya Ashok Mundhe

  24. 24.Gopaji Mhasaji Sanap

    Adv. Sadar DR

  25. 25.Arun Ruplala Jadhav

    Adv. Sadar DR

  26. 26.Shivaji Sakru Jadhav(Legal Heir)

    Adv. Sadar DR12.

  27. 27.Krushuna Shiwaji Jadhav

  28. 28.Soundaji Natthu Kakad(Legal Heir)

    Adv. Sadar DR13.

  29. 29.Ashok Soundaji Kakad

  30. 30.Karbhari Natthu Kakad(Legal Heir)

    Adv. Sadar DR14.

  31. 31.Kasabai Karbhari Kakad 14.

  32. 32.Vishnu Karbhari Kakad

  33. 33.Baburao Natthu Kakad

    Adv. Sadar DR

  34. 34.Laxman Natthuji Kakad

    Adv. Sadar DR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Uddhavrao Dattatrao Nagre

  2. 2.Prathiba Uddhao Nagre

  3. 3.State of Maharashtra

Case History

  1. 24-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 27-Apr-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    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.

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    R and P Ready

    District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.

  4. 24-Apr-2026

    R and P Ready

    District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.

  5. 16-Apr-2026

    R and P Ready

    District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.

  6. 27-Mar-2026

    R and P Ready

    District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    R and P Ready

    District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.

  8. 26-Feb-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.

  9. 28-Jan-2026

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.

  10. 24-Dec-2025

    Steps

    District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.

  11. 10-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 09-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 57/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case