Ganpati Sitaram Amrute etc. vs Ashok Narayan Kotkar etc. Advocate - S. H. Kadav — 1500067/2015
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 39. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO120002352015
Next Hearing
22nd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1500085/2015
Filing Date
04-06-2015
Registration No
1500067/2015
Registration Date
04-06-2015
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Gargoti
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.M.F.C.Gargoti
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ganpati Sitaram Amrute etc.
Adv. S. D. Bhosale
Shripati Sitaram Amrute
Ananda Sitaram Amrute
Dinkar Sitaram Amrute
Respondent(s)
Ashok Narayan Kotkar etc. Advocate - S. H. Kadav
Pandurang Krushna Kotkar
Chandrakant Tukaram Kotkar
Santosh Narayan Kotkar
Shamrao Tukaram Kotkar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.M.F.C.Gargoti
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 05-01-2026 | Evidence | |
| 14-10-2025 | Evidence | |
| 08-09-2025 | Evidence | |
| 14-07-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 67/2015. The application was allowed, and the defendants were restrained from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property (land Gat No. 218 in Mhasarang, Kolhapur) until the conclusion of the suit. The court found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, the balance of convenience favored them, and irreparable loss would result if the injunction was not granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 67/2015. The application was allowed, and the defendants were restrained from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property (land Gat No. 218 in Mhasarang, Kolhapur) until the conclusion of the suit. The court found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, the balance of convenience favored them, and irreparable loss would result if the injunction was not granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts