Shobhabai Sahebrao Salve vs Subhadrabai Kisan Kothalkar — 154/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order39,Rule1,2. Status: Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHJN070010942023
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
e-Filing Number
25-10-2023
Filing Number
297/2023
Filing Date
27-10-2023
Registration No
154/2023
Registration Date
30-10-2023
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Jafarabad
Judge
6-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shobhabai Sahebrao Salve
Adv. SALVE SHRIKANT PRAKASH
Suresh Sahebrao Salve
Adv. SALVE SHRIKANT PRAKASH
Respondent(s)
Subhadrabai Kisan Kothalkar
Dyaneswar Kisan Kothalkar
Madan Kisan Kothalkar
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 16-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 29-01-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 16-12-2025 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 15-10-2025 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS 154/2023 The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction against the defendants regarding disputed agricultural property in Pasodi village. The judge found that plaintiffs lack a prima facie case, as documentary evidence (including a Visar Pawati deed from 1996 and a prior lawsuit filed by the deceased owner) suggests defendants have possessed the property since 1996. Additionally, the court noted plaintiffs acted without clean hands—they had applied to sell the property to third parties and executed a separate Visar Pawati before filing this suit, facts concealed from the court. The balance of convenience favors defendants, who are actively cultivating crops on the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS 154/2023 The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction against the defendants regarding disputed agricultural property in Pasodi village. The judge found that plaintiffs lack a prima facie case, as documentary evidence (including a Visar Pawati deed from 1996 and a prior lawsuit filed by the deceased owner) suggests defendants have possessed the property since 1996. Additionally, the court noted plaintiffs acted without clean hands—they had applied to sell the property to third parties and executed a separate Visar Pawati before filing this suit, facts concealed from the court. The balance of convenience favors defendants, who are actively cultivating crops on the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts