Dhananjay Janardhan Bore vs Vijay Bhimrao Awhale Advocate - Bajad P.V — 175/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order39Rule1and2. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHBU210005732025
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
e-Filing Number
05-08-2025
Filing Number
620/2025
Filing Date
08-08-2025
Registration No
175/2025
Registration Date
08-08-2025
Court
Civil Judge Sr.Dn., Mehkar
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dhananjay Janardhan Bore
Respondent(s)
Vijay Bhimrao Awhale Advocate - Bajad P.V
State of Maharashtra Through Sub Divisional Officer Mehkar
State of Maharashtra Through Collector Buldhana
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 08-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 23-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 13-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 11-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY The temporary injunction application is partly allowed. The court restrained Defendant No.2 (SDO Mehkar) from creating any obstruction to the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit property until the final decision of the case. The court found the plaintiff has a prima-facie case as the registered property owner with lawful possession, and that the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable loss favor protecting his possession against the improperly initiated review proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY The temporary injunction application is partly allowed. The court restrained Defendant No.2 (SDO Mehkar) from creating any obstruction to the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit property until the final decision of the case. The court found the plaintiff has a prima-facie case as the registered property owner with lawful possession, and that the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable loss favor protecting his possession against the improperly initiated review proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts