Gunandhar Chandrappa Neje vs Shridhar Chandrappa Neje Advocate - Shital D. Patil — 57/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 22-Jun-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO180003242025

e-Filing Number

05-04-2025

Filing Number

79/2025

Filing Date

05-Apr-2025

Registration No

57/2025

Registration Date

05-Apr-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Kurundwad

Judge

3-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 38

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Gunandhar Chandrappa Neje

    Adv. A. D. Kallannawar, S. A. Kallannawar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shridhar Chandrappa Neje Advocate - Shital D. Patil

Case History

  1. 22-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  4. 04-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  5. 09-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  6. 07-Jan-2026

    Dismissal Order

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  7. 03-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  8. 05-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  9. 24-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  10. 30-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  11. 23-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  12. 19-Jun-2025

    Order on T.I.View PDF

    Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 57/2025 Court Decision: The temporary injunction application was rejected. Key Facts: Gunandhar Chandrappa Neje (plaintiff) sought to restrain his brother Shridhar Chandrappa Neje (defendant) from constructing on adjacent land in Dattawad village, Kolhapur, claiming encroachment on his 3.77 Are property. The defendant argued the ancestral land was partitioned between them in 2007 and he was building only on his own allocated portion. Grounds for Rejection: The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, failed to show balance of convenience in his favor, and would not suffer irreparable loss. Key issues included: the plaintiff suppressed facts about property area increasing from 3.375 to 3.77 Are without explanation; the defendant's construction was completed to lintel level with substantial investment; and credible witness affidavits supported the defendant's partition claim. Both parties bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  13. 19-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  14. 12-Jun-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  15. 30-May-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  16. 09-May-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  17. 05-May-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  18. 02-May-2025

    Summons_Ready

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  19. 23-Apr-2025

    Summons_Ready

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  20. 17-Apr-2025

    Summons_Ready

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  21. 07-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 05-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 57/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 57/2025 Court Decision: The temporary injunction application was rejected. Key Facts: Gunandhar Chandrappa Neje (plaintiff) sought to restrain his brother Shridhar Chandrappa Neje (defendant) from constructing on adjacent land in Dattawad village, Kolhapur, claiming encroachment on his 3.77 Are property. The defendant argued the ancestral land was partitioned between them in 2007 and he was building only on his own allocated portion. Grounds for Rejection: The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, failed to show balance of convenience in his favor, and would not suffer irreparable loss. Key issues included: the plaintiff suppressed facts about property area increasing from 3.375 to 3.77 Are without explanation; the defendant's construction was completed to lintel level with substantial investment; and credible witness affidavits supported the defendant's partition claim. Both parties bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case