Shripati Tukaram Torase vs Sadashiv Chanbasappa Swami — 109/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO130007502023
e-Filing Number
27-06-2023
Filing Number
200/2023
Filing Date
28-Jun-2023
Registration No
109/2023
Registration Date
28-Jun-2023
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Kagal
Judge
10-Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Shripati Tukaram Torase
Adv. S. M. Savardekar
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sadashiv Chanbasappa Swami
-
2.Mahadevi Chanbasappa Swami
-
3.Shivanand Sadashiv Swami
Case History
-
10-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
04-May-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
16-Mar-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
19-Jan-2026
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
26-Nov-2025
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
08-Oct-2025
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
03-Sep-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
06-Aug-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
25-Jun-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
02-Apr-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
-
25-Feb-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
-
16-Jan-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
-
19-Nov-2024
Issues
-
25-Sep-2024
Issues
-
20-Aug-2024
Issues
-
23-Jul-2024
Issues
-
30-Apr-2024
Issues
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
12-Mar-2024
Issues
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
23-Jan-2024
Issues
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
05-Dec-2023
Issues
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
21-Oct-2023
Issues
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
04-Sep-2023
Issues
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
31-Jul-2023
Order on T.I.View PDF
Case Summary: RCS 109/2023 Outcome: The plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was rejected. The court found that plaintiff Shripati Tukaram Torase failed to establish a prima facie case of encroachment by the defendants on his property. While both parties acknowledge adjacent properties and that the defendants' roof was removed for reconstruction, the court noted the plaintiff provided only his own words as evidence of encroachment measuring 2.5x33.3 feet. Given the ongoing rainy season and the defendants' exposed house, granting an injunction would risk damaging their property. The court determined no balance of convenience favored the plaintiff and that denying the injunction would cause no irreparable harm. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
31-Jul-2023
Issues
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
26-Jul-2023
Order on Exh
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
24-Jul-2023
Order on Exh
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
12-Jul-2023
Order on Exh
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
03-Jul-2023
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
-
28-Jun-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Jun-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 109/2023
Case Summary: RCS 109/2023 Outcome: The plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was rejected. The court found that plaintiff Shripati Tukaram Torase failed to establish a prima facie case of encroachment by the defendants on his property. While both parties acknowledge adjacent properties and that the defendants' roof was removed for reconstruction, the court noted the plaintiff provided only his own words as evidence of encroachment measuring 2.5x33.3 feet. Given the ongoing rainy season and the defendants' exposed house, granting an injunction would risk damaging their property. The court determined no balance of convenience favored the plaintiff and that denying the injunction would cause no irreparable harm. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts