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

Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section Order39,Rule1,2

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.

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

03-04-2024
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Jafarabad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case