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

Case disposed

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section 104

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

29-04-2026

Disposed

18-04-2026

Citation

01-04-2026

Citation

25-03-2026

Citation

11-03-2026

Citation

Final Orders / Judgements

29-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District Court and Addl.Sessions Court, Mehkar All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case