Motiram Sukaji Bahekar 5 vs Netram S/o Kusba Kawade Advocate - Machade N. R. — 1/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Status: Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready. Next hearing: 01st July 2026.

Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready Next hearing 01-Jul-2026

R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal

CNR: MHGO010019502025

e-Filing Number

24-12-2025

Filing Number

1031/2025

Filing Date

24-Dec-2025

Registration No

1/2026

Registration Date

02-Jan-2026

Court

District and Session Court , Gondia

Judge

5-Principal District and Sessions Judge Gondia

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Motiram Sukaji Bahekar 5

    Adv. Turkar B.T.

  2. 2.Ashok S/o Kashiram Bahekar

    Adv. TARONE TEJRAM SAKHARAMJI

  3. 3.Tejram S/o Kashiram Bahekar

    Adv. TARONE TEJRAM SAKHARAMJI

  4. 4.Bhojraj S/o Kashiram Bahekar

    Adv. TARONE TEJRAM SAKHARAMJI

  5. 5.Hiranbai w/o Kashiram Bahekar

  6. 6.Nilabai w/o Shobhelal Donode

    Adv. TARONE TEJRAM SAKHARAMJI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Netram S/o Kusba Kawade Advocate - Machade N. R.

  2. 2.Tukaram S/o Sukaji Bahekar

  3. 3.Daduram S/o Tulsiram Bahekar

  4. 4.Jagdish S/o Tulsiram Bahekar

  5. 5.Babibai W/o Bhyabhau Chute

  6. 6.Khekubai W/o Ratiram Kore

  7. 7.Kuntabai W/o Maroti Mendhe

Case History

  1. 01-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    Principal District and Sessions Judge Gondia

  3. 09-Jun-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    Principal District and Sessions Judge Gondia

  4. 28-Apr-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    Principal District and Sessions Judge Gondia

  5. 08-Apr-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    Principal District and Sessions Judge Gondia

  6. 25-Mar-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    Principal District and Sessions Judge Gondia

  7. 18-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: Motiram Bahekar & Ors. v. Netram Kawade & Ors. (RCA No. 01/2026) Outcome: The appellants' applications for temporary and status-quo injunctions (Exhibits 20 & 24) were rejected by the Principal District Judge, Gondia on 18.03.2026. Key Facts: Appellants sought to restrain respondent from constructing permanent structures on disputed land (Gat No.418, village Kalimati). The underlying suit alleged illegal encroachment of 0.50 acres by respondent. The trial court had dismissed the suit, finding plaintiffs failed to prove encroachment. During the appeal, respondent began permanent construction. Reason for Rejection: The court found no prima-facie case or balance of convenience favoring appellants because: (1) the trial court found encroachment not proven; (2) extent and measurements of alleged encroachment were not established; (3) disputed land boundaries created ambiguity; (4) respondent's defense claims construction is on his own Gat No.30 land. The court ordered status-quo maintenance until the next hearing on 25.03.2026 and directed respondent to submit construction permissions and photographs documenting current ground position. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 18-Mar-2026

    Compliance

    Principal District and Sessions Judge Gondia

  9. 13-Mar-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    Principal District and Sessions Judge Gondia

  10. 06-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Notice

    Principal District and Sessions Judge Gondia

  11. 24-Feb-2026

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    Principal District and Sessions Judge Gondia

  12. 03-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  13. 24-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Motiram Bahekar & Ors. v. Netram Kawade & Ors. (RCA No. 01/2026) Outcome: The appellants' applications for temporary and status-quo injunctions (Exhibits 20 & 24) were rejected by the Principal District Judge, Gondia on 18.03.2026. Key Facts: Appellants sought to restrain respondent from constructing permanent structures on disputed land (Gat No.418, village Kalimati). The underlying suit alleged illegal encroachment of 0.50 acres by respondent. The trial court had dismissed the suit, finding plaintiffs failed to prove encroachment. During the appeal, respondent began permanent construction. Reason for Rejection: The court found no prima-facie case or balance of convenience favoring appellants because: (1) the trial court found encroachment not proven; (2) extent and measurements of alleged encroachment were not established; (3) disputed land boundaries created ambiguity; (4) respondent's defense claims construction is on his own Gat No.30 land. The court ordered status-quo maintenance until the next hearing on 25.03.2026 and directed respondent to submit construction permissions and photographs documenting current ground position. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case