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

Evidence

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

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..

18-04-2026

Evidence

16-03-2026

Evidence

02-02-2026

Evidence

22-12-2025

Evidence

07-10-2025

Evidence

Interim Orders

27-06-2025
Order on T.I.

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Bhokardan All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case