Hariom Padmakar Patil Ug Anusaya Padmakar Patil vs Tahsildar Advocate - Dhumal Jaishil V_LAPA — 268/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7Rule1and2. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHLA110007902023

Hearing

Next Hearing

25th June 2026

e-Filing Number

15-12-2023

Filing Number

597/2023

Filing Date

15-12-2023

Registration No

268/2023

Registration Date

15-12-2023

Court

Civil Court Senior Division , Nilanga

Judge

2-Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7Rule1and2

Petitioner(s)

Hariom Padmakar Patil Ug Anusaya Padmakar Patil

Adv. Dhumal Ravikiran N

Respondent(s)

Tahsildar Advocate - Dhumal Jaishil V_LAPA

Circle Officer

Vijaykumar Digambar Sagare

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division

15-04-2026

Hearing

13-03-2026

Hearing

06-02-2026

Hearing

27-01-2026

Dismissal Order

12-12-2025

Hearing

Interim Orders

08-07-2024
Order on T.I.

Summary of RCS No. 268/2023 (Hariom vs. Tahsildar) Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction on 08/07/2024. The plaintiff sought to restrain defendants from obstructing his peaceful possession of 30R land in Survey No.5 and from creating a new way through the common boundary between Survey Nos.4 and 5. The court found that the defendants (government officials) had established a prima-facie case, balance of convenience favored them, and they would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction were granted. The court determined the defendants were legally implementing prior court orders recognizing defendant No.3's established right of way through the disputed area. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of RCS No. 268/2023 (Hariom vs. Tahsildar) Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction on 08/07/2024. The plaintiff sought to restrain defendants from obstructing his peaceful possession of 30R land in Survey No.5 and from creating a new way through the common boundary between Survey Nos.4 and 5. The court found that the defendants (government officials) had established a prima-facie case, balance of convenience favored them, and they would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction were granted. The court determined the defendants were legally implementing prior court orders recognizing defendant No.3's established right of way through the disputed area. 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 Court Senior Division , Nilanga All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case