Rama Urf Rambhau Bhika Hiwale vs Sarverao Devrao Hiwale Advocate - Adv. Wahule, WAHULE G.B. — 136/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 6,1,2. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 24th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHJN070011712022
Next Hearing
24th July 2026
Filing Number
338/2022
Filing Date
21-09-2022
Registration No
136/2022
Registration Date
21-09-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Jafarabad
Judge
6-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rama Urf Rambhau Bhika Hiwale
Adv. BORDE V.S.
Respondent(s)
Sarverao Devrao Hiwale Advocate - Adv. Wahule, WAHULE G.B.
Shalikram Deorao Hiwale
Manikrao Deorao Hiwale
Balu Shalikram Hiwale
Hausabai Bhaurao Hiwale
Sandeep Bhaurao Hiwale
Pradip Bhaurao Hiwale
Gautam Sarjerao Hiwale
Milind Sarjerao Hiwale
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 22-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 28-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 15-10-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 136/2022 The court allowed the plaintiff's interim injunction application in a land dispute involving agricultural property (Gat No. 227, 22.50R) in village Shindi, Jafrabad. The plaintiff established prima facie possession through long-standing revenue records (mutation entry from 1977) and continuous cultivation, while defendants denied his ownership. The court found the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff and that dispossession would cause irreparable loss. Defendants are temporarily restrained from obstructing the plaintiff's possession pending final suit determination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 136/2022 The court allowed the plaintiff's interim injunction application in a land dispute involving agricultural property (Gat No. 227, 22.50R) in village Shindi, Jafrabad. The plaintiff established prima facie possession through long-standing revenue records (mutation entry from 1977) and continuous cultivation, while defendants denied his ownership. The court found the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff and that dispossession would cause irreparable loss. Defendants are temporarily restrained from obstructing the plaintiff's possession pending final suit determination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts