Ekhanth bhimrav desai etc vs Suresh maruti desai etc Advocate - Sarjerav B. Patil — 1500080/2016
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 39. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 21st July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO120002522016
Next Hearing
21st July 2026
Filing Number
95/2016
Filing Date
07-05-2016
Registration No
1500080/2016
Registration Date
07-05-2016
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Gargoti
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.M.F.C.Gargoti
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ekhanth bhimrav desai etc
Adv. S. D. Bhosale
Yogesh Ekanth deasi
Respondent(s)
Suresh maruti desai etc Advocate - Sarjerav B. Patil
Vishawas Maruti deasi
Adv. Sarjerav B. Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.M.F.C.Gargoti
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 12-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 06-10-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Reg. Civil Suit No. 80/2016 The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction to prevent defendants from obstructing a 5 ft. × 40 ft. lane through Grampanchayat House No. 7, which they claimed was an easementary way for access to their house. The court rejected the application, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of an existing easement. Evidence showed alternative access existed on the northern side of plaintiffs' property. The court concluded defendants are the lawful owners/possessors of the property, and no documented easementary right in favor of plaintiffs was proven. Application dismissed on 24/11/2016. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Reg. Civil Suit No. 80/2016 The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction to prevent defendants from obstructing a 5 ft. × 40 ft. lane through Grampanchayat House No. 7, which they claimed was an easementary way for access to their house. The court rejected the application, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of an existing easement. Evidence showed alternative access existed on the northern side of plaintiffs' property. The court concluded defendants are the lawful owners/possessors of the property, and no documented easementary right in favor of plaintiffs was proven. Application dismissed on 24/11/2016. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts