Sau Harsha Pradip Tekade vs M/s Rajnandani Homes, Through Its Partners, Smt Yogita Raju Bhoyar, Shri Ramesh Mansaramani — 76/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151,order39rule1and2. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit

CNR: MHNG080013552024

Evidence

Next Hearing

24th June 2026

e-Filing Number

09-07-2024

Filing Number

174/2024

Filing Date

10-07-2024

Registration No

76/2024

Registration Date

11-07-2024

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Kamptee

Judge

10-2nd Jt. CJJD and JMFC., Kamptee

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 151,order39rule1and2

Petitioner(s)

Sau Harsha Pradip Tekade

Adv. RAJURKAR KUNDAN SURESH

Sau Laxmi Shankarrao Sawarkar

Adv. RAJURKAR KUNDAN SURESH

Respondent(s)

M/s Rajnandani Homes, Through Its Partners, Smt Yogita Raju Bhoyar, Shri Ramesh Mansaramani

Shri Indrajit Jiwanlal Bawankule

Smt Chandrabhaga Jiwanlal Bawankule

Smt Heerabai Devidas Bhute

Smt Rukhma Banduji Tandulkar

Smt Bhagirathi Murlidhar Hatwar

Smt Bebi Laxman Fandi

Shri Nilkanth Jiwanlal Bawankule

Hearing History

Judge: 10-2nd Jt. CJJD and JMFC., Kamptee

17-04-2026

Evidence

10-03-2026

Evidence

23-01-2026

Evidence

23-12-2025

Evidence

25-11-2025

Evidence

Interim Orders

18-10-2025
Issues
18-10-2025
Order on T.I.

Summary: The court allowed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX CPC. All defendants (No.1 to 8) are restrained from executing any third-party interest over the disputed suit land (2.87 hectares) until final disposal of the case. The court found a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable loss favoring the plaintiffs in this property dispute involving an allegedly coerced gift deed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court allowed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX CPC. All defendants (No.1 to 8) are restrained from executing any third-party interest over the disputed suit land (2.87 hectares) until final disposal of the case. The court found a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable loss favoring the plaintiffs in this property dispute involving an allegedly coerced gift deed. 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 , Kamptee All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case