Kalyan Apparao Ubale vs Bharat Govrdhan Ubale Advocate - PAWSE R. D. — 292/2024

Case under Specific Relief Act Section Order. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHJN040022182024

Evidence Part Heard

Next Hearing

22nd June 2026

e-Filing Number

09-09-2024

Filing Number

977/2024

Filing Date

18-09-2024

Registration No

292/2024

Registration Date

18-09-2024

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Ambad

Judge

6-Jt. CJJD and JMFC COURT AMBAD

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section Order

Petitioner(s)

Kalyan Apparao Ubale

Adv. SULANE P. N.

Respondent(s)

Bharat Govrdhan Ubale Advocate - PAWSE R. D.

Govardhan Apparao Ubale

Sharad Govardhan Ubale

Latabai Babasaheb Pachfule

Hearing History

Judge: 6-Jt. CJJD and JMFC COURT AMBAD

20-04-2026

Evidence Part Heard

16-03-2026

Evidence Part Heard

12-02-2026

Evidence Part Heard

08-12-2025

Evidence Part Heard

03-10-2025

Evidence

Interim Orders

17-03-2025
Order on T.I.

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 292/2024 - Kalyan v. Bharat & Ors. Kalyan's application for permanent injunction to restrain defendants from obstructing his possession of agricultural land (Gat No. 26) in Jalna district was rejected on 17 March 2025. The court found no prima facie case in plaintiff's favor, noting that the latest 7/12 extract (land record) lists defendants as owners, not the plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to provide documentary evidence of his challenges to disputed mutation entries before revenue authorities. The court also found balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiff. Each party bears its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 292/2024 - Kalyan v. Bharat & Ors. Kalyan's application for permanent injunction to restrain defendants from obstructing his possession of agricultural land (Gat No. 26) in Jalna district was rejected on 17 March 2025. The court found no prima facie case in plaintiff's favor, noting that the latest 7/12 extract (land record) lists defendants as owners, not the plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to provide documentary evidence of his challenges to disputed mutation entries before revenue authorities. The court also found balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiff. Each party bears its own costs. 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 , Ambad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case