Kisan Anandarao Shinde vs Chief and Administrator Municipal Parishad Jaysingpur — 55/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 21st July 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO070003342025

Evidence

Next Hearing

21st July 2026

e-Filing Number

01-03-2025

Filing Number

166/2025

Filing Date

01-03-2025

Registration No

55/2025

Registration Date

03-03-2025

Court

Civil Court Sr.Dn. and Jr.Dn. Jaysingpur

Judge

18-3rd Joint CJJD JMFC Jaysingpur

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 38

Petitioner(s)

Kisan Anandarao Shinde

Adv. E. G. Nadaf

Ramu Maruti Shingade

Adv. E. G. Nadaf

Respondent(s)

Chief and Administrator Municipal Parishad Jaysingpur

Hearing History

Judge: 18-3rd Joint CJJD JMFC Jaysingpur

18-04-2026

Evidence

10-03-2026

Evidence

20-01-2026

Evidence

18-11-2025

Evidence

19-09-2025

Evidence

Interim Orders

29-03-2025
Order on Exhibit

SUMMARY The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction seeking to prevent the defendant (Chief Officer, Jaysingpur Nagarparishad) from demolishing their structure on municipal property. The judge found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they admitted encroaching on the property for 5 years without permission, lacked supporting documentary evidence (electricity bills, water taxes), and their Aadhar card address did not match the suit property address. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction seeking to prevent the defendant (Chief Officer, Jaysingpur Nagarparishad) from demolishing their structure on municipal property. The judge found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they admitted encroaching on the property for 5 years without permission, lacked supporting documentary evidence (electricity bills, water taxes), and their Aadhar card address did not match the suit property address. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant. 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 Sr.Dn. and Jr.Dn. Jaysingpur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case