Vidhyadhar Nayba Sadawarte (Power of Attorner) Kiran Gambhir More vs Madhav Limbaji Kuhire Advocate - SAYYAD B. R. — 217/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 391,2. Status: List of Witness. Next hearing: 15th July 2026.

List of Witness Next hearing 15-Jul-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHJN070009112025

e-Filing Number

14-07-2025

Filing Number

372/2025

Filing Date

15-Jul-2025

Registration No

217/2025

Registration Date

15-Jul-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Jafarabad

Judge

6-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 391,2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vidhyadhar Nayba Sadawarte (Power of Attorner) Kiran Gambhir More

    Adv. WAHULE GAUTAM BHIMRAO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Madhav Limbaji Kuhire Advocate - SAYYAD B. R.

  2. 2.Ankush Limbaji Kuhire

  3. 3.Vishvanath Balwanta More

  4. 4.Dadarao Balwanta More

  5. 5.Sarjerao Balwanta More

  6. 6.Pandit Balwanta More

  7. 7.Dipak Dadarao More

  8. 8.Dhammapal Sarjerao More

Case History

  1. 15-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-May-2026

    List of Witness

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    List of Witness

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    List of Witness

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.

  5. 22-Jan-2026

    List of Witness

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.

  6. 03-Dec-2025

    Issues

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.

  7. 17-Oct-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 217/2025 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction dated 17.10.2025. The plaintiff sought to restrain defendants from obstructing his property and destroying crops while creating an access way. However, the Civil Judge found no prima facie case, as the Tahsildar had already lawfully granted the defendants an approach way through the plaintiff's property (gut No.112) via proper revenue procedure. The balance of convenience favored the defendants, whose ability to harvest crops would be irreparably harmed by granting the injunction. The plaintiff's pending appeal against the Tahsildar's order does not suspend its validity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 17-Oct-2025

    Issues

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.

  9. 15-Oct-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.

  10. 10-Oct-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.

  11. 30-Sep-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.

  12. 18-Sep-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.

  13. 01-Aug-2025

    W.S. and Say

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.

  14. 15-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 15-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 217/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 217/2025 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction dated 17.10.2025. The plaintiff sought to restrain defendants from obstructing his property and destroying crops while creating an access way. However, the Civil Judge found no prima facie case, as the Tahsildar had already lawfully granted the defendants an approach way through the plaintiff's property (gut No.112) via proper revenue procedure. The balance of convenience favored the defendants, whose ability to harvest crops would be irreparably harmed by granting the injunction. The plaintiff's pending appeal against the Tahsildar's order does not suspend its validity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case