Gajbar Ibrahim Parit vs Biyama Meeraso Parit @ Biyama Ibrahim Parit Advocate - Vijay. B. Kadukar — 234/2022
Case under Specific Relief (amendment) Act Section 34,38. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 22nd July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO100010142022
Next Hearing
22nd July 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
604/2022
Filing Date
04-10-2022
Registration No
234/2022
Registration Date
04-10-2022
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Gadhinglaj
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Gadhinglaj.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gajbar Ibrahim Parit
Adv. M. L. Shaikh
2 Sardar Ibrahim Parit
3 Gulab Ibrahim Parit
4 Husen Ibrahim Parit
5 Hasan Ibrahim Parit
Respondent(s)
Biyama Meeraso Parit @ Biyama Ibrahim Parit Advocate - Vijay. B. Kadukar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Gadhinglaj.
Issues
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Issues | |
| 18-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 17-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 10-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 10-02-2026 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case: Niyamit Nivanee Dava No. 234/2022 (Property Dispute) Court: Gadhingalj Civil Court, Kolhapur District, Maharashtra Judge: S.D. Mehta, Assistant Civil Judge Date: 18/03/2026 Outcome: The petition is ALLOWED/GRANTED. The court issued a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from conducting any construction work on the plaintiff's (respondent's) property share (192 sq.m.) and from obstructing her ownership and possession rights. The court found merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding her Muslim inheritance rights and the risk of irreversible damage to the property. Court costs are imposed on the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: Niyamit Nivanee Dava No. 234/2022 (Property Dispute) Court: Gadhingalj Civil Court, Kolhapur District, Maharashtra Judge: S.D. Mehta, Assistant Civil Judge Date: 18/03/2026 Outcome: The petition is ALLOWED/GRANTED. The court issued a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from conducting any construction work on the plaintiff's (respondent's) property share (192 sq.m.) and from obstructing her ownership and possession rights. The court found merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding her Muslim inheritance rights and the risk of irreversible damage to the property. Court costs are imposed on the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts