Ramchandra S/o Baburao Bahekar vs Rupraj S/o Shyamrao Bahekar Advocate - Kosarkar D.N. — 7/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: List of Witness. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHGO070001722024
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
e-Filing Number
28-02-2024
Filing Number
14/2024
Filing Date
28-02-2024
Registration No
7/2024
Registration Date
28-02-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division ,Deori
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Deori
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramchandra S/o Baburao Bahekar
Adv. Prashant Namdeorao Sangidwar
Gitabai W/o Ramchandra Bahekar
Adv. Prashant Namdeorao Sangidwar
Respondent(s)
Rupraj S/o Shyamrao Bahekar Advocate - Kosarkar D.N.
Pushpabai W/o Rupraj Bahekar
Adv. Kosarkar D.N.
Gitabai Wd/o Namdeo Bahekar
Adv. Kosarkar D.N.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Deori
List of Witness
List of Witness
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | List of Witness |
| 11-03-2026 | List of Witness |
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 27-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 13-02-2026 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: Both temporary injunction applications were rejected. The court found that neither plaintiffs nor defendants proved the three required parameters (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss) for granting temporary injunction. The plaintiffs failed to establish they were partners in the weighing bridge business, with documentary evidence showing it was solely registered under defendant no. 2's name, while defendants' vague allegations of threats lacked specific details and timely police complaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: Both temporary injunction applications were rejected. The court found that neither plaintiffs nor defendants proved the three required parameters (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss) for granting temporary injunction. The plaintiffs failed to establish they were partners in the weighing bridge business, with documentary evidence showing it was solely registered under defendant no. 2's name, while defendants' vague allegations of threats lacked specific details and timely police complaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts