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
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
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
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 20-01-2026 | Evidence | |
| 18-11-2025 | Evidence | |
| 19-09-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Explore other courts