ABHINANDAN INDARCHAND SURANA vs SANTOSHKUMAR GENDULAL SURANA — 9/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.

Argument on Exh.____Unready Next hearing 19-Jun-2026 this date has passed

Spl.C.S. - Spl.Civ.Suit

CNR: MHBU210001542025

e-Filing Number

21-02-2025

Filing Number

147/2025

Filing Date

21-Feb-2025

Registration No

9/2025

Registration Date

21-Feb-2025

Court

Civil Judge Sr.Dn., Mehkar

Judge

1-CIVIL Judge Senior Division

Last updated 20-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ABHINANDAN INDARCHAND SURANA

    Adv. Rathi OG

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SANTOSHKUMAR GENDULAL SURANA

  2. 2.INDARCHAND GENDULAL SURANA

  3. 3.SMT LATABAI JAYCHAND SURANA

  4. 4.ATUL JAYCHAND SURANA

  5. 5.SIDDHARTH ALIAS VIPUL JAYCHAND SURANA

  6. 6.RITESH INDARCHAND SURANA

  7. 7.THE AKOLA JANATA COMMERCIAL CO OP BANK LTD AKOLA BRANCH LONAR

  8. 8.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

  9. 9.THE TAHSILDAR LONAR

Case History

  1. 19-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 04-May-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  7. 05-Feb-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    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.

  8. 05-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  9. 01-Jan-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  10. 17-Dec-2025

    Compromise

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  11. 04-Dec-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  12. 04-Dec-2025

    Compromise

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  13. 27-Nov-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  14. 11-Nov-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  15. 04-Nov-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  16. 13-Oct-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  17. 30-Sep-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  18. 04-Sep-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  19. 12-Aug-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  20. 22-Jul-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  21. 17-Jul-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  22. 02-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  23. 11-Jun-2025

    Reply/Say

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  24. 29-Apr-2025

    Reply/Say

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  25. 03-Apr-2025

    Reply/Say

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  26. 24-Mar-2025

    Reply/Say

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  27. 07-Mar-2025

    Reply/Say

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  28. 05-Mar-2025

    Reply/Say

    CIVIL Judge Senior Division

  29. 21-Feb-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  30. 21-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 21-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 9/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case