Satling s/o Ranaba Birajdar vs Gundu s/o Pandit Havaldar Othr 1 Advocate - Tigade Manoj G — 621/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7Rule1. Disposed: Uncontested--TRANSFERRED / MADE OVER on 12th February 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHLA140025372025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

21-08-2025

Filing Number

1411/2025

Filing Date

25-08-2025

Registration No

621/2025

Registration Date

26-08-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Ausa

Judge

3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C, Ausa

Decision Date

12th February 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--TRANSFERRED / MADE OVER

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section Order7Rule1

Petitioner(s)

Satling s/o Ranaba Birajdar

Adv. KUSUMKAR GAJANAN HARIBHAU

Respondent(s)

Gundu s/o Pandit Havaldar Othr 1 Advocate - Tigade Manoj G

Balika w/o Gundu Havaldar

Adv. Tigade Manoj G

Hearing History

Judge: 3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C, Ausa

12-02-2026

Disposed

21-01-2026

Hearing

27-11-2025

Issues

20-11-2025

Issues

15-11-2025

Order on Exh

Interim Orders

15-11-2025
Order on T.I.
20-11-2025
Order on T.I.

The court rejected defendants' application for a temporary injunction to restrain the plaintiff from obstructing their construction on a 30x40 feet plot within survey no. 18 in village Sarani. The court found that defendants failed to establish a prima facie case, as they provided no credible evidence of legal allotment of the disputed area under the Earthquake Rehabilitation Scheme, and the allotment process remained incomplete. Consequently, the court determined defendants could not demonstrate possession or the requisite elements for injunctive relief, dismissing their application with costs awarded to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected defendants' application for a temporary injunction to restrain the plaintiff from obstructing their construction on a 30x40 feet plot within survey no. 18 in village Sarani. The court found that defendants failed to establish a prima facie case, as they provided no credible evidence of legal allotment of the disputed area under the Earthquake Rehabilitation Scheme, and the allotment process remained incomplete. Consequently, the court determined defendants could not demonstrate possession or the requisite elements for injunctive relief, dismissing their application with costs awarded to the plaintiff. 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 Junior Division , Ausa All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case