Bhaurao Shravan Nikhade vs Gajanan Maroti Nikhade Advocate - N.U.Lodalliwar — 84/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHGA090019872025
Next Hearing
25th June 2026
e-Filing Number
18-12-2025
Filing Number
179/2025
Filing Date
19-12-2025
Registration No
84/2025
Registration Date
19-12-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Chamorshi
Judge
10-Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhaurao Shravan Nikhade
Adv. SATPUTE KEMAJI TULSHIRAM
Respondent(s)
Gajanan Maroti Nikhade Advocate - N.U.Lodalliwar
Sudhakar Maroti Thengane
Shamrao Kashinath Gaurkar
Tataji Baburao Potraje
Baban Kashinath Gaurkar
Lomesh Ram Gaurkar
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi
Issues
Lok-Nyayalaya
Issues
Issues
Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-05-2026 | Issues |
| 29-04-2026 | Lok-Nyayalaya |
| 16-04-2026 | Issues |
| 30-03-2026 | Issues |
| 13-03-2026 | Issues |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Bhaurao Shravan Nikhade v. Gajanan Maroti Nikhade (84/2025) The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to prevent defendants from removing a wire compound around his property (survey no. 204/2, 1.90 hectares, Gadchiroli). The court rejected the application on March 13, 2026, finding the plaintiff failed to establish: (1) a prima facie case, as there was no evidence defendants actually obstructed the structure and the Tahasildar's removal order was directed at the plaintiff, not defendants; (2) irreparable loss, since the dispute concerns the compound's location—a matter for trial—and monetary compensation was adequate; and (3) balance of convenience favoring defendants' access to their fields. The case proceeds to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Bhaurao Shravan Nikhade v. Gajanan Maroti Nikhade (84/2025) The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to prevent defendants from removing a wire compound around his property (survey no. 204/2, 1.90 hectares, Gadchiroli). The court rejected the application on March 13, 2026, finding the plaintiff failed to establish: (1) a prima facie case, as there was no evidence defendants actually obstructed the structure and the Tahasildar's removal order was directed at the plaintiff, not defendants; (2) irreparable loss, since the dispute concerns the compound's location—a matter for trial—and monetary compensation was adequate; and (3) balance of convenience favoring defendants' access to their fields. The case proceeds to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts