Vividh Karyakari Sanstha Sultanpur vs Damodhar Sitaram Surushe — 6/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 104. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 29th April 2026.
M.C.A. - Misc.Civil Appeal
CNR: MHBU200003752025
e-Filing Number
08-05-2025
Filing Number
126/2025
Filing Date
09-05-2025
Registration No
6/2025
Registration Date
09-05-2025
Court
District Court and Addl.Sessions Court, Mehkar
Judge
1-District Judge-1 and Additional Sess.Judge
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vividh Karyakari Sanstha Sultanpur
Adv. Dhondge KS
Vividh Karyakari Sanstha Sultanpur
Respondent(s)
Damodhar Sitaram Surushe
Madhukar Sheshrao Khetre
Pandurang Sahebrao Gadekar
Baban Sakharam Bidve
Gajanan Kisan Jhore
Santosh Uttam Surushe
Pradeep Sukhahari Gadekar
Rajesh Devidas Patil
Fulchand Dasrath Shirale
Sarpanch Gram Panchayat
Sub Sarpanch Gram Panchayat
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 and Additional Sess.Judge
Disposed
Citation
Citation
Citation
Citation
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-04-2026 | Citation |
| 01-04-2026 | Citation |
| 25-03-2026 | Citation |
| 11-03-2026 | Citation |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Judge of Mehkar set aside the lower court's temporary injunction order, finding that shop owners (plaintiffs) failed to prove prima facie possession of the disputed land and had concealed material facts. The court determined the plaintiffs were encroachers on land belonging to a registered agricultural society and upheld the society's right to construct a new building on its own property (Survey No. 626), rejecting the injunction application with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The District Judge of Mehkar set aside the lower court's temporary injunction order, finding that shop owners (plaintiffs) failed to prove prima facie possession of the disputed land and had concealed material facts. The court determined the plaintiffs were encroachers on land belonging to a registered agricultural society and upheld the society's right to construct a new building on its own property (Survey No. 626), rejecting the injunction application with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts