Vitthal Rangrao More vs State of Maharashtra Advocate - Patel Syed Mujahe Dulla M — 1037/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA110005192022
Next Hearing
10th July 2026
Filing Number
592/2022
Filing Date
15-07-2022
Registration No
1037/2022
Registration Date
15-07-2022
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Nilanga
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vitthal Rangrao More
Adv. Jadhav Udhav S
Navalbai Vitthalrao More
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Advocate - Patel Syed Mujahe Dulla M
Tahsildar
Madhav Ganpati More
Pandurang Dhondiba More
Tatyarao Rangrao More
Govind Rangrao More
Ram Rangrao More
Datta Tukaram More
Dnyaneshwar Tukaram More
Digambar Tukaram More
Ranjit Ramrao More
Digambar Ramrao More
Sanjay Tatyarao More
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
Evidence Part Heard
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 27-01-2026 | Hearing |
| 12-12-2025 | Hearing |
| 15-10-2025 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS 1037/2022 - Vitthal Rangrao More v. State of Maharashtra Outcome: The application for temporary injunction was allowed. The court restrained defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of their land at village Sawari, Latur district, and from creating a new way through the northern side (Gat No.7) of the plaintiffs' property. Key Finding: The court found that plaintiffs established a prima-facie case, the balance of convenience favored them, and they would suffer irreparable loss without protection. The court noted that defendants had alternative access routes available and that no official record supported a way through the plaintiffs' land—only a water stream passage existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS 1037/2022 - Vitthal Rangrao More v. State of Maharashtra Outcome: The application for temporary injunction was allowed. The court restrained defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of their land at village Sawari, Latur district, and from creating a new way through the northern side (Gat No.7) of the plaintiffs' property. Key Finding: The court found that plaintiffs established a prima-facie case, the balance of convenience favored them, and they would suffer irreparable loss without protection. The court noted that defendants had alternative access routes available and that no official record supported a way through the plaintiffs' land—only a water stream passage existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts