ABHINANDAN INDARCHAND SURANA vs SANTOSHKUMAR GENDULAL SURANA — 9/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section -. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Spl.Civ.Suit
CNR: MHBU210001542025
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
e-Filing Number
21-02-2025
Filing Number
147/2025
Filing Date
21-02-2025
Registration No
9/2025
Registration Date
21-02-2025
Court
Civil Judge Sr.Dn., Mehkar
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ABHINANDAN INDARCHAND SURANA
Adv. Rathi OG
Respondent(s)
SANTOSHKUMAR GENDULAL SURANA
INDARCHAND GENDULAL SURANA
SMT LATABAI JAYCHAND SURANA
ATUL JAYCHAND SURANA
SIDDHARTH ALIAS VIPUL JAYCHAND SURANA
RITESH INDARCHAND SURANA
THE AKOLA JANATA COMMERCIAL CO OP BANK LTD AKOLA BRANCH LONAR
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THE TAHSILDAR LONAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 16-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 23-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 11-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 16-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Special Civil Suit No. 9/2025, the court granted a status-quo order against defendants No. 7, 8, and 9, restraining them from taking possession of the suit property till the next hearing date. The judge found that the plaintiff had apprehension of dispossession and was in actual possession, and rejecting the defendant's argument that no fresh status-quo should be granted, held it justified to maintain the existing order to prevent loss and complications to the plaintiff pending final arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Special Civil Suit No. 9/2025, the court granted a status-quo order against defendants No. 7, 8, and 9, restraining them from taking possession of the suit property till the next hearing date. The judge found that the plaintiff had apprehension of dispossession and was in actual possession, and rejecting the defendant's argument that no fresh status-quo should be granted, held it justified to maintain the existing order to prevent loss and complications to the plaintiff pending final arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts