Prahlad Baburao Dhawan vs Eknath Atmaram Dhawan Advocate - Vinayak B. Patil — 195/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 04th August 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO190008182025

Issues

Next Hearing

04th August 2026

e-Filing Number

24-11-2025

Filing Number

273/2025

Filing Date

25-11-2025

Registration No

195/2025

Registration Date

26-11-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari

Judge

5-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34

Petitioner(s)

Prahlad Baburao Dhawan

Adv. S. P. Wagvekar

Ramesh Baburao Dhawan

Adv. S. P. Wagvekar

Suresh Baburao Dhawan

Adv. S. P. Wagvekar

Respondent(s)

Eknath Atmaram Dhawan Advocate - Vinayak B. Patil

Hearing History

Judge: 5-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari

24-04-2026

Issues

23-04-2026

Order on Exh

15-04-2026

Order on Exh

08-04-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

25-03-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

Interim Orders

24-04-2026
Order on T.I.

SUMMARY The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs (Prahlad Baburao Dhawan) restraining the defendants from obstructing their peaceful possession of agricultural land (Block Nos. 502 and 503) at Naratawade, Kolhapur, or damaging crops therein until final disposal of the suit. The court found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case based on revenue records in their names, the balance of convenience favored them, and they would suffer irreparable injury from loss of standing crops if the injunction were refused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs (Prahlad Baburao Dhawan) restraining the defendants from obstructing their peaceful possession of agricultural land (Block Nos. 502 and 503) at Naratawade, Kolhapur, or damaging crops therein until final disposal of the suit. The court found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case based on revenue records in their names, the balance of convenience favored them, and they would suffer irreparable injury from loss of standing crops if the injunction were refused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case