Jagajit Shrikant Bhosale vs Rajendra Nanaso Chavan Advocate - S.P. Mendake — 156/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38,. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO130020412025
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
e-Filing Number
28-10-2025
Filing Number
269/2025
Filing Date
28-10-2025
Registration No
156/2025
Registration Date
30-10-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Kagal
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. AND J.M.F.C.Kagal.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jagajit Shrikant Bhosale
Adv. H. P. Randive
Respondent(s)
Rajendra Nanaso Chavan Advocate - S.P. Mendake
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. AND J.M.F.C.Kagal.
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 10-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 10-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 06-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 27-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case: Jagajit Shrikant Bhosale vs Rajendra Nanaso Chavan (R.C.S. No. 156/2025) Outcome: The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of land (Gat No. 196/2) and from carrying out further construction on the property until final disposal of the suit. The court found a prima facie case of encroachment and determined that the balance of convenience favors the plaintiff, who would suffer irreparable loss if the construction were allowed to continue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: Jagajit Shrikant Bhosale vs Rajendra Nanaso Chavan (R.C.S. No. 156/2025) Outcome: The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of land (Gat No. 196/2) and from carrying out further construction on the property until final disposal of the suit. The court found a prima facie case of encroachment and determined that the balance of convenience favors the plaintiff, who would suffer irreparable loss if the construction were allowed to continue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts