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
e-Filing Number
15-12-2023
Filing Number
597/2023
Filing Date
15-Dec-2023
Registration No
268/2023
Registration Date
15-Dec-2023
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Nilanga
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Hariom Padmakar Patil Ug Anusaya Padmakar Patil
Adv. Dhumal Ravikiran N
Respondent(s)
-
1.Tahsildar Advocate - Dhumal Jaishil V_LAPA
-
2.Circle Officer
-
3.Vijaykumar Digambar Sagare
Case History
-
25-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
15-Apr-2026
Hearing
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
13-Mar-2026
Hearing
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
06-Feb-2026
Hearing
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
27-Jan-2026
Dismissal Order
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
12-Dec-2025
Hearing
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
15-Oct-2025
Hearing
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
22-Sep-2025
Hearing
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
22-Jul-2025
Hearing
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
17-Jun-2025
Hearing
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
20-Mar-2025
Hearing
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
05-Feb-2025
Hearing
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
19-Dec-2024
Hearing
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
22-Oct-2024
Hearing
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
25-Sep-2024
List of Witness
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
05-Aug-2024
List of Witness
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
08-Jul-2024
Order on T.I.View PDF
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.
-
08-Jul-2024
Issues
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
05-Jul-2024
Order on Exh
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
22-Jun-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
10-Jun-2024
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
10-Jun-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division
-
10-May-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
-
16-Apr-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
-
08-Apr-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
-
02-Apr-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
-
22-Mar-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
-
12-Mar-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
-
31-Jan-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
-
17-Jan-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
-
09-Jan-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
-
20-Dec-2023
Written Statement
Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
-
19-Dec-2023
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
19-Dec-2023
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
19-Dec-2023
Order on Exh
Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
-
15-Dec-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
15-Dec-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 268/2023
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.
Explore other courts