Sadashiv Ramchandra Bhosale vs Subhash Pandurang Patil Advocate - R. D. Jugale — 218/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 37,38. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.

Argument on Exh.____Ready Next hearing 15-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO110018902025

e-Filing Number

07-10-2025

Filing Number

399/2025

Filing Date

08-Oct-2025

Registration No

218/2025

Registration Date

10-Oct-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Peth Vadgaon

Judge

5-2nd Jt. C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Peth Vadgaon

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 37,38
Indian Easements Act Section All

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sadashiv Ramchandra Bhosale

    Adv. Umesh S. Mangave

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Subhash Pandurang Patil Advocate - R. D. Jugale

Case History

  1. 15-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  5. 20-Dec-2025

    Filing of Say on Exh___Ready

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  6. 18-Nov-2025

    Order on T.I.View PDF

    Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 218/2025 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction on November 18, 2025. Both parties must bear their own costs. Key Facts: Plaintiff Sadashiv Ramchandra Bhosale sought to prevent defendants Subhash Pandurang Patil and others from constructing on adjoining property, claiming he holds an easementary right of access through their land to the Borpadale-Vathar road. The defendants began construction on their property in October 2025, prompting this interim relief application. Court's Reasoning: The judge found no prima facie case, as photographs showed the plaintiff already had alternative access via an unpaved internal road (~10 feet wide), and no evidence demonstrated the defendants were actually disturbing his possession. The court noted the defendants would suffer greater loss (Rs. 1,00,000 spent on materials and drainage) than the plaintiff if enjoined, and reserved all substantive issues regarding easement rights for final trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 18-Nov-2025

    Issues

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  8. 15-Nov-2025

    Order on Exh

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  9. 14-Nov-2025

    Order on Exh

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  10. 12-Nov-2025

    Order on Exh

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  11. 07-Nov-2025

    Order on Exh

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  12. 05-Nov-2025

    Order on Exh

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  13. 04-Nov-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  14. 04-Nov-2025

    Order on Exh

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  15. 29-Oct-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  16. 28-Oct-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  17. 17-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  18. 15-Oct-2025

    W.S. and Say

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  19. 14-Oct-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  20. 14-Oct-2025

    W.S. and Say

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  21. 13-Oct-2025

    W.S. and Say

    3rd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC PethVadgaon

  22. 10-Oct-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  23. 10-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 08-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 218/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 218/2025 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction on November 18, 2025. Both parties must bear their own costs. Key Facts: Plaintiff Sadashiv Ramchandra Bhosale sought to prevent defendants Subhash Pandurang Patil and others from constructing on adjoining property, claiming he holds an easementary right of access through their land to the Borpadale-Vathar road. The defendants began construction on their property in October 2025, prompting this interim relief application. Court's Reasoning: The judge found no prima facie case, as photographs showed the plaintiff already had alternative access via an unpaved internal road (~10 feet wide), and no evidence demonstrated the defendants were actually disturbing his possession. The court noted the defendants would suffer greater loss (Rs. 1,00,000 spent on materials and drainage) than the plaintiff if enjoined, and reserved all substantive issues regarding easement rights for final trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case