Shri. Govind Subhana Vanjole vs Smt. Seventa Janba Vanjole Advocate - S. S. Nikam — 55/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Status: Steps. Next hearing: 14th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO150002312016
Next Hearing
14th July 2026
Filing Number
55/2016
Filing Date
24-06-2016
Registration No
55/2016
Registration Date
04-07-2016
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Ajara
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shri. Govind Subhana Vanjole
Adv. V. R. Patil
Respondent(s)
Smt. Seventa Janba Vanjole Advocate - S. S. Nikam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara
Steps
Steps
Steps
Ex-Parte Order
Ex-Parte Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Steps |
| 07-04-2026 | Steps |
| 16-03-2026 | Steps |
| 19-01-2026 | Ex-Parte Order |
| 01-12-2025 | Ex-Parte Order |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 55/2016 (Govind vs. Shevanta) Plaintiff Govind Subhana Vanjole sought a temporary injunction to restrain defendants from constructing on disputed agricultural property (0.47 R land, Gat No. 680, village Kine, Kolhapur), claiming it was Hindu joint family property requiring partition. The court rejected the application on 15.06.2022, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a prima-facie case that the property was joint family property, lacked balance of convenience, and would suffer no irreparable loss. No costs were awarded given the peculiar circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 55/2016 (Govind vs. Shevanta) Plaintiff Govind Subhana Vanjole sought a temporary injunction to restrain defendants from constructing on disputed agricultural property (0.47 R land, Gat No. 680, village Kine, Kolhapur), claiming it was Hindu joint family property requiring partition. The court rejected the application on 15.06.2022, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a prima-facie case that the property was joint family property, lacked balance of convenience, and would suffer no irreparable loss. No costs were awarded given the peculiar circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts