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
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
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
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts