GOVIND DINKAR JOSHI vs Maharashtra State through Collector Jalna — 304/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 14th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHJN020011612025
Next Hearing
14th July 2026
e-Filing Number
21-05-2025
Filing Number
1191/2025
Filing Date
23-05-2025
Registration No
304/2025
Registration Date
23-05-2025
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Jalna
Judge
33-Joint Civil Judge Senior Division
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVIND DINKAR JOSHI
Adv. DESHMUKH S. V.
Respondent(s)
Maharashtra State through Collector Jalna
SUB DIVISION OFFICER JALNA
NAYAB TAHSILDAR
REVENUE INSPECTOR MANDAL ADHIKARI
THE TALATHI
BAPURAO SAKHARAM MANDHVE
Adv. JAKKALWAR G.M.
AASARAM RANOJI MANDHVE
GANGARAM SAKHARAM MANDHVE
KAILAS DATTRAYA KUREWAD
Adv. JAKKALWAR G.M.
Hearing History
Judge: 33-Joint Civil Judge Senior Division
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-06-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 06-04-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 16-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 14-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 15-01-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 304/2025 Outcome: Temporary injunction application GRANTED. The court restrained defendants from creating any new way from Gut nos. 646 and 647 till final suit disposal. Plaintiff Govind Dinkar Joshi established prima facie case, balance of convenience favored him, and irreparable loss would result without protection of his land possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 304/2025 Outcome: Temporary injunction application GRANTED. The court restrained defendants from creating any new way from Gut nos. 646 and 647 till final suit disposal. Plaintiff Govind Dinkar Joshi established prima facie case, balance of convenience favored him, and irreparable loss would result without protection of his land possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts