Amol Baban Bagal vs Balaso Ramu Kachare Advocate - S. M. Savardekar — 171/2023

Case under Specific Relief (Amendment) Act Section 34,38,39. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

Hearing Next hearing 11-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO130011922023

e-Filing Number

21-09-2023

Filing Number

334/2023

Filing Date

04-Oct-2023

Registration No

171/2023

Registration Date

05-Oct-2023

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Kagal

Judge

1-C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief (Amendment) Act Section 34,38,39

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Amol Baban Bagal

    Adv. S. V. Potdar

  2. 2.Amit Baban Bagal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Balaso Ramu Kachare Advocate - S. M. Savardekar

Case History

  1. 11-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  3. 20-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  4. 28-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  5. 13-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  6. 07-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  7. 25-Jun-2025

    Hearing

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  8. 03-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  9. 16-Jan-2025

    Hearing

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  10. 27-Nov-2024

    Hearing

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  11. 09-Oct-2024

    Hearing

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  12. 15-Jul-2024

    Hearing

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  13. 15-Apr-2024

    Issues

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  14. 07-Feb-2024

    Order on T.I.View PDF

    Summary: The Civil Court at Kagal rejected the plaintiffs' application for injunction under Order 39 of the CPC seeking to restrain defendants from obstructing their use of an underground water pipeline and electric motor pump on disputed property in Kolhapur. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss, noting the absence of any written agreement regarding the pipeline's use and ownership. The court directed the plaintiffs to pursue their remedy under Section 49 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code instead, which provides an alternate efficacious remedy for such water-sharing disputes between adjacent landowners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  15. 07-Feb-2024

    Issues

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  16. 24-Jan-2024

    Order

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  17. 09-Jan-2024

    Order

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  18. 18-Dec-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  19. 15-Dec-2023

    W.S. and Say

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  20. 06-Nov-2023

    W.S. and Say

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  21. 27-Oct-2023

    Summons_Ready

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C.Kagal.

  22. 07-Oct-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 04-Oct-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 171/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Civil Court at Kagal rejected the plaintiffs' application for injunction under Order 39 of the CPC seeking to restrain defendants from obstructing their use of an underground water pipeline and electric motor pump on disputed property in Kolhapur. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss, noting the absence of any written agreement regarding the pipeline's use and ownership. The court directed the plaintiffs to pursue their remedy under Section 49 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code instead, which provides an alternate efficacious remedy for such water-sharing disputes between adjacent landowners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case