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
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
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
Disposed
Hearing
Issues
Issues
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-02-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-01-2026 | Hearing |
| 27-11-2025 | Issues |
| 20-11-2025 | Issues |
| 15-11-2025 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Explore other courts