Savita Uttam Jadhav vs Gokul Kashinath Avhad — 68/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHNS140005422019
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
88/2019
Filing Date
16-05-2019
Registration No
68/2019
Registration Date
16-05-2019
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Dindori
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC DINDORI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Savita Uttam Jadhav
Adv. Ghorpade Pradip S.
Respondent(s)
Gokul Kashinath Avhad
Amol Haribha Kalekar
Adv. Jadhav Santosh J.
Axis Bank, Branch Nashik.
Kasbe Vani Karyakari Society
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC DINDORI
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 17-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 10-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 04-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 13-12-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary The Court granted the plaintiff's interim injunction application under Order 39 CPC. Defendants 1 and 2 are temporarily restrained from transferring the suit property, altering revenue records, or obstructing the plaintiff's possession until final disposal of the suit. The court found prima facie evidence of fraud—the defendants allegedly executed a sale deed and power of attorney using the plaintiff's thumb impression without her knowledge, when she believed only a security agreement for a loan was being executed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Court granted the plaintiff's interim injunction application under Order 39 CPC. Defendants 1 and 2 are temporarily restrained from transferring the suit property, altering revenue records, or obstructing the plaintiff's possession until final disposal of the suit. The court found prima facie evidence of fraud—the defendants allegedly executed a sale deed and power of attorney using the plaintiff's thumb impression without her knowledge, when she believed only a security agreement for a loan was being executed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts