Ashok Shankar Patil vs Suresh Shankar Patil — 11/2026
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 4,6,22. Status: Steps. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO160000052026
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
e-Filing Number
31-12-2025
Filing Number
4/2026
Filing Date
01-01-2026
Registration No
11/2026
Registration Date
01-01-2026
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Malkapur Shauwadi
Judge
3-Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Malkapur-Shahuwadi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ashok Shankar Patil
Adv. A. S. Chougule
Respondent(s)
Suresh Shankar Patil
Sakharam Shankar Patil
Ananda Shankar Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Malkapur-Shahuwadi
Steps
Steps
Steps
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Steps |
| 16-03-2026 | Steps |
| 13-02-2026 | Steps |
| 12-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 11-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case 11/2026 - Ashok Shankar Patil v. Suresh Shankar Patil and Others Outcome: The petition (inspection no. 5) seeking interim injunction has been dismissed. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favor, or that irreparable injury would result without interim relief. The respondents' evidence showed the disputed property (house no. 36) was jointly divided among brothers in 2007 with everyone's consent, and respondent no. 1 has been in possession since then. The court ruled the petition lacks merit on all key grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case 11/2026 - Ashok Shankar Patil v. Suresh Shankar Patil and Others Outcome: The petition (inspection no. 5) seeking interim injunction has been dismissed. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favor, or that irreparable injury would result without interim relief. The respondents' evidence showed the disputed property (house no. 36) was jointly divided among brothers in 2007 with everyone's consent, and respondent no. 1 has been in possession since then. The court ruled the petition lacks merit on all key grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts