Sangita Sudhakar Dandge and 2 vs Harnabai Ragho Dandge and — 293/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 10th August 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHJN060021922023
Next Hearing
10th August 2026
e-Filing Number
18-10-2023
Filing Number
500/2023
Filing Date
20-10-2023
Registration No
293/2023
Registration Date
20-10-2023
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Bhokardan
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. BHOKARDAN..
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sangita Sudhakar Dandge and 2
Adv. JADHAV D. S.
Shital Mahendra Lokhande
Komal Kiran Lokhande
Respondent(s)
Harnabai Ragho Dandge and
Kiran Ragho Dandge
Akshay Ragho Dandge
Rajnikant Ragho Dandge
Bhagyshri Vikas Ingle
Mohan Sitaram Dandge
Ratnakar Tukaram Dandge
Savita Prakash Dandge
Adv. MEHTA H. H.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. BHOKARDAN..
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 22-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 07-10-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. 293/2023 The court allowed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction (27.06.2025). Plaintiffs sought to restrain defendants from creating third-party interests in ancestral properties at Borgaon Jahangir, Jalna district, claiming coparcenary rights (1/3 share). The court found prima facie evidence that the properties are ancestral, the plaintiffs have a valid case, balance of convenience favors them, and irreparable loss would result if injunction is denied. Defendants largely failed to contest proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. 293/2023 The court allowed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction (27.06.2025). Plaintiffs sought to restrain defendants from creating third-party interests in ancestral properties at Borgaon Jahangir, Jalna district, claiming coparcenary rights (1/3 share). The court found prima facie evidence that the properties are ancestral, the plaintiffs have a valid case, balance of convenience favors them, and irreparable loss would result if injunction is denied. Defendants largely failed to contest proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts