Govind Bhau Dongare vs Chandru Govind Dongare Advocate - S. V. Powar — 65/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34, 38. Status: Order on Exh. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO150003332022
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
112/2022
Filing Date
24-08-2022
Registration No
65/2022
Registration Date
24-08-2022
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Ajara
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govind Bhau Dongare
Adv. A. S. Farakate
Vishvnath Bhau Dongare
Respondent(s)
Chandru Govind Dongare Advocate - S. V. Powar
Umakant Bhau Dongare
Ganga Dattatray Chavan
Sumitra Ananda Dongare
Avadhut Ananda Dongare
Sanjivani Rajesh Patil
Shankar Tatoba Parab
Maruti Tatoba Parab
Ramchandra Tatoba Parab
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Ajara
Order on Exh
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Steps
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 10-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 09-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 15-12-2025 | Steps | |
| 03-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary The Civil Court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX of the CPC. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima-facie case of ownership and possession over the disputed property, lacking evidence that it was purchased for the Hindu joint family or partitioned to their father. The registered sale deed showed defendant no. 1 as the owner, which prevailed over witness affidavits. No costs were awarded due to the peculiar circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Civil Court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX of the CPC. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima-facie case of ownership and possession over the disputed property, lacking evidence that it was purchased for the Hindu joint family or partitioned to their father. The registered sale deed showed defendant no. 1 as the owner, which prevailed over witness affidavits. No costs were awarded due to 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