Balu Govind Gavade alias hanbar vs Suresh Jakoba Gavade alias Hanbar Advocate - R. P. Bandiwadekar — 222/2025

Case under Hindu Succession Act Section 6. Status: R and P Ready. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

R and P Ready Next hearing 18-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO140009312025

e-Filing Number

08-12-2025

Filing Number

301/2025

Filing Date

10-Dec-2025

Registration No

222/2025

Registration Date

10-Dec-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Chandgad

Judge

1-C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Hindu Succession Act Section 6

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Balu Govind Gavade alias hanbar

    Adv. S. S. Kot

  2. 2.Sanjay Govind Gavade alias Hanbar

    Adv. KOT SUBHASH SHREESHAILAPPA

  3. 3.Ratnabai Govind Gavade alias Hanbar

    Adv. KOT SUBHASH SHREESHAILAPPA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Suresh Jakoba Gavade alias Hanbar Advocate - R. P. Bandiwadekar

  2. 2.Sugandha Pandurang Matkar

Case History

  1. 18-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 04-Jun-2026

    R and P Ready

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  3. 29-May-2026

    Issues

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Order on T.I.View PDF

    Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 222/2025 Outcome: Application ALLOWED. Interim injunction granted restraining defendants 1-9 from carrying out construction on the disputed property and from altering its nature. Key Facts: Plaintiffs sought interim relief under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC to prevent defendants from constructing on disputed land (Gat No. 422) claimed as ancestral family property. Defendants argued they held legal rights as co-owners following oral partition circa 1980 and contended co-owners cannot obtain injunctions against co-owners. Court's Finding: Court found plaintiffs established prima facie case with majority 7/12 land records entries in their names, balance of convenience favored plaintiffs, and irreparable loss would result without protection. Court rejected defendants' co-ownership defense, noting defendants failed to substantiate their claims and didn't challenge the ex-parte interim relief granted previously, suggesting lack of urgency for construction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 10-Apr-2026

    Issues

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  6. 09-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  7. 07-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  8. 06-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  9. 04-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  10. 30-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  11. 24-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  12. 23-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  13. 20-Mar-2026

    Order on Exh

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  14. 16-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  15. 11-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  16. 07-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  17. 04-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  18. 25-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  19. 20-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  20. 04-Feb-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  21. 23-Jan-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  22. 16-Jan-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  23. 05-Jan-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  24. 24-Dec-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  25. 15-Dec-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad

  26. 12-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 10-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 222/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 222/2025 Outcome: Application ALLOWED. Interim injunction granted restraining defendants 1-9 from carrying out construction on the disputed property and from altering its nature. Key Facts: Plaintiffs sought interim relief under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC to prevent defendants from constructing on disputed land (Gat No. 422) claimed as ancestral family property. Defendants argued they held legal rights as co-owners following oral partition circa 1980 and contended co-owners cannot obtain injunctions against co-owners. Court's Finding: Court found plaintiffs established prima facie case with majority 7/12 land records entries in their names, balance of convenience favored plaintiffs, and irreparable loss would result without protection. Court rejected defendants' co-ownership defense, noting defendants failed to substantiate their claims and didn't challenge the ex-parte interim relief granted previously, suggesting lack of urgency for construction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case