Savita Sitaram Nagpure vs Narayan Maniram Nagpure Advocate - Bhandarkar P.R. — 12/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 07th July 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHGO080002182022

Evidence

Next Hearing

07th July 2026

Filing Number

15/2022

Filing Date

09-02-2022

Registration No

12/2022

Registration Date

09-02-2022

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Tirora

Judge

2-Jt.Civil JudgeJr. Dn. JMFC. Tirora

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 39

Petitioner(s)

Savita Sitaram Nagpure

Adv. Shende N.P.

Rajkumar Sitaram Nagpure

Adv. Shende N.P.

Atul Sitaram Nagpure

Adv. Shende N.P.

Karishma Sitaram Nagpure

Adv. Shende N.P.

Shyamkala Jawje Rohit Garade

Adv. Shende N.P.

Respondent(s)

Narayan Maniram Nagpure Advocate - Bhandarkar P.R.

Tularam Maniram Nagpure

Harbal Maniram Nagpure

Godibai Tulasiram Mohare

Bhuribai Doma Sawalakhe

Ratnamala Bisan Nagpure

Vijay Bisan Nagpure

Sanjay Bisan Nagpure

Laxmi Karu Nagpure

Nitin Karu Nagpure

Shubham Karu Nagpure

Vishal Kailash Prajapati

Adv. Bhandarkar P.R.

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Jt.Civil JudgeJr. Dn. JMFC. Tirora

16-04-2026

Evidence

11-03-2026

Evidence

11-02-2026

Evidence

15-01-2026

Evidence

16-12-2025

Evidence

Interim Orders

16-04-2022
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary Case: Savita & Ors v/s. Narayan & Ors (R.C.S No. 12/2022) Outcome: The temporary injunction application is rejected. The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience does not favor them, and they will not suffer irreparable loss. The brick factory operating on the joint family property since 2020 with consent of co-owners (except plaintiffs) was deemed not illegal, and plaintiffs' undivided share remains intact. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case: Savita & Ors v/s. Narayan & Ors (R.C.S No. 12/2022) Outcome: The temporary injunction application is rejected. The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience does not favor them, and they will not suffer irreparable loss. The brick factory operating on the joint family property since 2020 with consent of co-owners (except plaintiffs) was deemed not illegal, and plaintiffs' undivided share remains intact. 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 Court Junior Division , Tirora All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case