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

Argument on Exh.____Unready

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

Specific Relief Act Section 38,

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.

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

11-12-2025
Order on T.I.

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court , Kagal All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case