Bharat Rambhau Sirsat vs Ramesh Ganesh Talekar Advocate - Awachar SA — 25/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Status: List of Witness. Next hearing: 15th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHBU170002392024
Next Hearing
15th July 2026
e-Filing Number
15-03-2024
Filing Number
40/2024
Filing Date
19-03-2024
Registration No
25/2024
Registration Date
19-03-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Lonar
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Lonar
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bharat Rambhau Sirsat
Adv. Mundhe SB
Respondent(s)
Ramesh Ganesh Talekar Advocate - Awachar SA
Manda Ramesh Talekar
Adv. Awachar SA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Lonar
List of Witness
List of Witness
List of Witness
List of Witness
List of Witness
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | List of Witness |
| 11-03-2026 | List of Witness |
| 14-01-2026 | List of Witness |
| 03-12-2025 | List of Witness |
| 08-10-2025 | List of Witness |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: The Civil Judge Junior Division, Lonar, rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC on 15/07/2024. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as he did not provide documentary proof of constructing a house, cattle shed, or go-down on the suit land (Gat No. 4), despite these claims being central to his injunction plea. The defendants' title over their constructed property was supported by a registered sale-deed (2013) witnessed by the plaintiff himself, making the properties entirely distinct and the balance of convenience favor the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The Civil Judge Junior Division, Lonar, rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC on 15/07/2024. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as he did not provide documentary proof of constructing a house, cattle shed, or go-down on the suit land (Gat No. 4), despite these claims being central to his injunction plea. The defendants' title over their constructed property was supported by a registered sale-deed (2013) witnessed by the plaintiff himself, making the properties entirely distinct and the balance of convenience favor the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts