Vilas Nanasaheb Deshmukh etc 2 vs Uma Sanjay Deshmukh etc 5 Advocate - Vadje Nilesh K. — 148/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,39. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 06th May 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHNS140013782021
Next Hearing
06th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
208/2021
Filing Date
08-10-2021
Registration No
148/2021
Registration Date
08-10-2021
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Dindori
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC DINDORI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vilas Nanasaheb Deshmukh etc 2
Adv. Gaikwad Shivaji V.
Sambhaji Nanasaheb Deshmukh
Adv. Gaikwad Shivaji V.
Respondent(s)
Uma Sanjay Deshmukh etc 5 Advocate - Vadje Nilesh K.
Sayali Sanjay Deshmukh
Adv. Vadje Nilesh K.
Shivaji Sanjay Deshmukh
Adv. Vadje Nilesh K.
Pratik Sanjay Deshmukh
Adv. Vadje Nilesh K.
Kisan Laxman Deshmukh(Legal Heir) 5.
Himmatrao Kisanrao Deshmukh 5.
Sunil Kisanrao Deshmukh 5.
Anita Kisanrao Deshmukh
Adv. Gaikwad Kailas J.5.
Akkabai Kisanrao Deshmukh
Adv. Gaikwad Kailas J.
Trupti Prakash Kavache Alias Trupti Vasudev Varade
Adv. Khairnar Anand Vasantrao
Savita Sanjay Netavate
Adv. Khairnar Anand Vasantrao
Sanjay Dayanand Netavate
Adv. Khairnar Anand Vasantrao
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC DINDORI
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
List of Witness
List of Witness
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 15-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 24-11-2025 | List of Witness | |
| 16-09-2025 | List of Witness |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court partly allowed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction in a property partition dispute. Defendants 6-8 are restrained from alienating or transferring the 2 hectares of suit property in their name (acquired via sale deed 4573/23) until final disposal of the suit. However, the court rejected the plaintiffs' request to restrain defendants 6-8 from obstructing their possession of the entire property, finding no prima facie evidence of exclusive possession. The court found the plaintiffs established a prima facie case challenging the partition deed, balance of convenience favored them, and irreparable loss would result if alienation were permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court partly allowed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction in a property partition dispute. Defendants 6-8 are restrained from alienating or transferring the 2 hectares of suit property in their name (acquired via sale deed 4573/23) until final disposal of the suit. However, the court rejected the plaintiffs' request to restrain defendants 6-8 from obstructing their possession of the entire property, finding no prima facie evidence of exclusive possession. The court found the plaintiffs established a prima facie case challenging the partition deed, balance of convenience favored them, and irreparable loss would result if alienation were permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts