Jagan Sakharam Bhavar vs Bajirao Trimbak Nimase Advocate - chavan Shailesh B. — 322/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Status: Reply/Say. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHNS140017412025
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
e-Filing Number
17-11-2025
Filing Number
431/2025
Filing Date
17-11-2025
Registration No
322/2025
Registration Date
17-11-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Dindori
Judge
3-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC DINDORI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jagan Sakharam Bhavar
Adv. Vadje Nilesh K.
Sahebrao Sakharam Bhavar
Adv. Vadje Nilesh K.
Dilip Sakharam Bhavar
Adv. Vadje Nilesh K.
Vijay Sakharam Bhavar
Adv. Vadje Nilesh K.
Respondent(s)
Bajirao Trimbak Nimase Advocate - chavan Shailesh B.
Ashok Trambak Shete
Uttam Ganpat Bhavar
Kamal Arun Bhavar
Jayram Tukaram Fugat
Jyoti Sudam Bhavar
Tarabai Shantaram Dharble
Dattatray Kondaji Bhavar
Deepak Sudam Bhavar
Daulat Kashinath Bhavar
Pundlik Bhika Bhavar
Bajirao Karbhari Bhavar
Balu Karbhari Bhavar
Bhanudas Sukdev Bhavar
Ramnath Eknath Bhavar
Rahul Revaji Nimase
Roshanlal Teluram Agrawal
Adv. chavan Shailesh B.
Varsha Sudam Bhavar
Vinayak Kashinath Bhavar
Sachin Arun Bhavar
Sanjay Tukaram Bhavar
Sampat Eknath Bhavar
Sushila Sudam Bhavar
Manisha Girish Shah
Riyan Manish Shah
Hearing History
Judge: 3-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC DINDORI
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 08-04-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 10-03-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 23-02-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 05-01-2026 | Reply/Say |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court granted an interim ex-parte injunction against Defendant No. 1, restraining him from conducting any partition (subdivision) of the disputed agricultural property pending resolution of the dispute over inheritance and land ownership rights. The court found sufficient grounds for the injunction given the conflicting claims regarding land area (80 acres vs. 31 acres) and ordered the defendant to file his response by 10/12/2025 to show cause why the injunction should not be made permanent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court granted an interim ex-parte injunction against Defendant No. 1, restraining him from conducting any partition (subdivision) of the disputed agricultural property pending resolution of the dispute over inheritance and land ownership rights. The court found sufficient grounds for the injunction given the conflicting claims regarding land area (80 acres vs. 31 acres) and ordered the defendant to file his response by 10/12/2025 to show cause why the injunction should not be made permanent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts