Babasaheb Santaram Madge and 1 vs Gunderao Venkat Madge Advocate - Dhongde Umakant K — 57/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA150003742016
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
Filing Number
191/2016
Filing Date
05-05-2016
Registration No
57/2016
Registration Date
05-05-2016
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Chakur
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Chakur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Babasaheb Santaram Madge and 1
Adv. Badde Nagnath B
Pandit Santram Madge
Adv. Badde Nagnath B
Respondent(s)
Gunderao Venkat Madge Advocate - Dhongde Umakant K
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Chakur
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
Awaiting Summons
Amended Plaint
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Written Statement |
| 10-04-2026 | Written Statement |
| 13-03-2026 | Written Statement |
| 06-02-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 16-01-2026 | Amended Plaint |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 57/2016 Order: Application Rejected Plaintiffs Babasaheb and Pandit Santram Madge sought a temporary injunction to restrain defendant Gunderao Venkat Madge from constructing on a common 6-foot passage between their ancestral properties in village Shirnal. The court rejected the application, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as the defendant produced construction permission granted by Grampanchayat on 16.03.2009 and evidence from the prior case (R.C.S. 33/2009) confirming existing construction and a 4.5-foot lane. The court held no irreparable loss was proven and balance of convenience did not favor plaintiffs; legality of construction would be determined at trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 57/2016 Order: Application Rejected Plaintiffs Babasaheb and Pandit Santram Madge sought a temporary injunction to restrain defendant Gunderao Venkat Madge from constructing on a common 6-foot passage between their ancestral properties in village Shirnal. The court rejected the application, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as the defendant produced construction permission granted by Grampanchayat on 16.03.2009 and evidence from the prior case (R.C.S. 33/2009) confirming existing construction and a 4.5-foot lane. The court held no irreparable loss was proven and balance of convenience did not favor plaintiffs; legality of construction would be determined at trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts