Pushpa Pandharinath Wayal vs Vimal Tateba Jaybhay — 9/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Status: Dismissal Order. Next hearing: 15th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHBU150000462022
Next Hearing
15th July 2026
Filing Number
12/2022
Filing Date
19-01-2022
Registration No
9/2022
Registration Date
19-01-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Deulgaonraja
Judge
2-Jt.CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. J.M.F.C.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pushpa Pandharinath Wayal
Adv. Bhala GP
Respondent(s)
Vimal Tateba Jaybhay
Manohar Tateba Jaybhay
Dnyaneshwar Tateba Jaybhay
Sunita Manohar Jaybhay
Anil Bhaurao Jaybhay
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt.CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. J.M.F.C.
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 07-04-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 24-03-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 11-03-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 25-02-2026 | Dismissal Order |
Interim Orders
Case Summary The court dismissed the petition (Issues 1-3) and rejected the interim relief application (Issue 4) filed by the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership, court-ordered possession, or irreparable harm regarding the disputed agricultural property. The plaintiff provided insufficient documentary evidence (only a 7/12 extract) and did not substantiate critical claims with supporting documents such as sale deeds, affidavits, or police complaint records, resulting in the dismissal of the application for interim injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court dismissed the petition (Issues 1-3) and rejected the interim relief application (Issue 4) filed by the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership, court-ordered possession, or irreparable harm regarding the disputed agricultural property. The plaintiff provided insufficient documentary evidence (only a 7/12 extract) and did not substantiate critical claims with supporting documents such as sale deeds, affidavits, or police complaint records, resulting in the dismissal of the application for interim injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts