Narayan Tukaram Patil vs Collector, Kolhapur — 190/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,38. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO090005982025

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

Next Hearing

23rd June 2026

e-Filing Number

04-10-2025

Filing Number

614/2025

Filing Date

06-10-2025

Registration No

190/2025

Registration Date

07-10-2025

Court

Civil Court Senior Division , Gadhinglaj

Judge

1-Civil Judge Senior Division Gadhinglaj

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34,38

Petitioner(s)

Narayan Tukaram Patil

Adv. V. G. Desai

2- Mahaesh Narayan Patil

Adv. DESAI VIJAY GOPAL

Respondent(s)

Collector, Kolhapur

2- Hon Collectors and Sadsya Sachiv Dist Niyojan Samit Kolhapur

3- Hon Executive Engineer

Adv. व्ही. एस. जाधव

4- Hon Up Abhiyanta So

5- Hon Junior Engineer So

6- Hon Gram Mahasul Abhikari So

7- Shivraj Shashikant Desai

8- Maruti Babu Nakadi

9- Sarvesh Sambhaji Kanagutakar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Gadhinglaj

28-04-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

07-04-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

10-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

27-02-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

13-02-2026

W.S. and Say

Interim Orders

27-01-2026
Order on Exhibit

SUMMARY: The court granted the plaintiff's status-quo application under Section 151 CPC, ordering defendants to maintain the status quo of the suit property until the next date of hearing. The court found that defendants failed to file their written statement on the interim injunction application despite reasonable opportunity, and granting protection to the plaintiff was necessary to preserve the property and prevent the suit from becoming infructuous. Cost in cause was imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The court granted the plaintiff's status-quo application under Section 151 CPC, ordering defendants to maintain the status quo of the suit property until the next date of hearing. The court found that defendants failed to file their written statement on the interim injunction application despite reasonable opportunity, and granting protection to the plaintiff was necessary to preserve the property and prevent the suit from becoming infructuous. Cost in cause was imposed. 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 Senior Division , Gadhinglaj All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case