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.

Issues Next hearing 25-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHGA090019872025

e-Filing Number

18-12-2025

Filing Number

179/2025

Filing Date

19-Dec-2025

Registration No

84/2025

Registration Date

19-Dec-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Chamorshi

Judge

10-Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Bhaurao Shravan Nikhade

    Adv. SATPUTE KEMAJI TULSHIRAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Gajanan Maroti Nikhade Advocate - N.U.Lodalliwar

  2. 2.Sudhakar Maroti Thengane

  3. 3.Shamrao Kashinath Gaurkar

  4. 4.Tataji Baburao Potraje

  5. 5.Baban Kashinath Gaurkar

  6. 6.Lomesh Ram Gaurkar

Case History

  1. 25-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-May-2026

    Issues

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  3. 29-Apr-2026

    Lok-Nyayalaya

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Issues

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    Issues

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    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.

  7. 13-Mar-2026

    Issues

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  8. 12-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  9. 26-Feb-2026

    Order on Exh

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  10. 16-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  11. 12-Feb-2026

    Citation

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  12. 05-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  13. 29-Jan-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  14. 29-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  15. 22-Jan-2026

    Order on Exh

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  16. 15-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  17. 09-Jan-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi

  18. 20-Dec-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  19. 20-Dec-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  20. 20-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 19-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 84/2025

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case