Iftekhar alies Juber S/o Mohammad Isaq Shaikh vs Sarojini W/o Vishwajeet Joshi Advocate - Ghogre Dhanraj L — 26/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section order7Rule1. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHLA050004892024
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
e-Filing Number
24-11-2024
Filing Number
462/2024
Filing Date
27-11-2024
Registration No
26/2024
Registration Date
27-11-2024
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Ahmedpur
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedpur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Iftekhar alies Juber S/o Mohammad Isaq Shaikh
Adv. Murkute Satyavan B
Respondent(s)
Sarojini W/o Vishwajeet Joshi Advocate - Ghogre Dhanraj L
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedpur
Issues
Issues
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Issues |
| 02-04-2026 | Issues |
| 27-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 17-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 16-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Iftekhar v. Sarojini (Case 26/2024) Outcome: Petition ALLOWED. The court granted temporary injunction restraining the respondent from transferring the remaining property (plot no. 506) to a third party until final judgment in the underlying civil case. The petitioner's application costs are to be incorporated in the final decree. Key Facts: Petitioner claimed the respondent agreed to sell 3 hectares of agricultural land for Rs. 11,25,000 per acre and already transferred portions to petitioner's sons via sale deeds. Respondent denied the agreement, claiming no consideration was received and no binding contract existed. The court found petitioner had established prima facie rights and balance of convenience favored him, as respondent's transfer to another buyer would cause irreparable harm. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Iftekhar v. Sarojini (Case 26/2024) Outcome: Petition ALLOWED. The court granted temporary injunction restraining the respondent from transferring the remaining property (plot no. 506) to a third party until final judgment in the underlying civil case. The petitioner's application costs are to be incorporated in the final decree. Key Facts: Petitioner claimed the respondent agreed to sell 3 hectares of agricultural land for Rs. 11,25,000 per acre and already transferred portions to petitioner's sons via sale deeds. Respondent denied the agreement, claiming no consideration was received and no binding contract existed. The court found petitioner had established prima facie rights and balance of convenience favored him, as respondent's transfer to another buyer would cause irreparable harm. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts