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

Issues

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

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

09-05-2026

Issues

29-04-2026

Lok-Nyayalaya

16-04-2026

Issues

30-03-2026

Issues

13-03-2026

Issues

Interim Orders

13-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court, Chamorshi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case