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.

Case disposed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHLA140025372025

e-Filing Number

21-08-2025

Filing Number

1411/2025

Filing Date

25-Aug-2025

Registration No

621/2025

Registration Date

26-Aug-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Ausa

Judge

3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c, Ausa

Decision Date

12-Feb-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--TRANSFERRED / MADE OVER

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7Rule1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Satling s/o Ranaba Birajdar

    Adv. KUSUMKAR GAJANAN HARIBHAU

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.Balika w/o Gundu Havaldar

    Adv. Tigade Manoj G

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Feb-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c, Ausa

  3. 21-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c, Ausa

  4. 27-Nov-2025

    Issues

    3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c, Ausa

  5. 20-Nov-2025

    Order on T.I.View PDF

    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.

  6. 20-Nov-2025

    Issues

    3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c, Ausa

  7. 15-Nov-2025

    Order on T.I.View PDF

  8. 15-Nov-2025

    Order on Exh

    3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c, Ausa

  9. 14-Nov-2025

    Order on Exh

    3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c, Ausa

  10. 13-Nov-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c, Ausa

  11. 04-Nov-2025

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c, Ausa

  12. 17-Oct-2025

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c, Ausa

  13. 10-Oct-2025

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c, Ausa

  14. 08-Oct-2025

    W.S. and Say

    3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c, Ausa

  15. 20-Sep-2025

    W.S. and Say

    3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.m.f.c, Ausa

  16. 28-Aug-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  17. 28-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  18. 25-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 621/2025

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case