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
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
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
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Dismissal Order
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 13-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 06-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 27-01-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 12-12-2025 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Explore other courts