Arun Sakharam Chougale vs Maruti Bhau Sapkal Advocate - Vinayak B. Patil — 219/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 37,38. Status: Hearing Without W.S.. Next hearing: 06th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO190008802025
Next Hearing
06th July 2026
e-Filing Number
20-12-2025
Filing Number
304/2025
Filing Date
20-12-2025
Registration No
219/2025
Registration Date
20-12-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari
Judge
5-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Arun Sakharam Chougale
Adv. S. R. Bhandigare
Ashwini Mahadev Tambekar
Adv. S. R. Bhandigare
Respondent(s)
Maruti Bhau Sapkal Advocate - Vinayak B. Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari
Hearing Without W.S.
W.S. and Say
Filing of Vakilpatra_Unready
Filing of Vakilpatra_Unready
Awaiting Summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Hearing Without W.S. |
| 10-03-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 04-02-2026 | Filing of Vakilpatra_Unready |
| 07-01-2026 | Filing of Vakilpatra_Unready |
| 22-12-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
Interim Orders
Summary: Ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted. The court restrained the defendant from carrying out construction on the suit property (Block No. 1006/A at Thikpurli, Radhanagari, Kolhapur) until the defendant files their response. The court found prima facie evidence that the property belongs to the plaintiff's deceased father through land records and photographs showing construction commencement, making the injunction necessary to protect the property's nature and preserve the suit's purpose. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: Ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted. The court restrained the defendant from carrying out construction on the suit property (Block No. 1006/A at Thikpurli, Radhanagari, Kolhapur) until the defendant files their response. The court found prima facie evidence that the property belongs to the plaintiff's deceased father through land records and photographs showing construction commencement, making the injunction necessary to protect the property's nature and preserve the suit's purpose. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts