Vilas Dhondiram Deshmane vs Manik Khanderao Nikhade Advocate - Pawar Popatrao D. — 15/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39A. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 02nd May 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHNS160000852026
Next Hearing
02nd May 2026
e-Filing Number
22-01-2026
Filing Number
26/2026
Filing Date
22-01-2026
Registration No
15/2026
Registration Date
22-01-2026
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Chandwad
Judge
1-CJJD and JMFC, Chandwad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vilas Dhondiram Deshmane
Adv. DESHMANE JAYASHREE VILAS
Respondent(s)
Manik Khanderao Nikhade Advocate - Pawar Popatrao D.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CJJD and JMFC, Chandwad
Evidence
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 04-04-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready | |
| 30-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready | |
| 20-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 20-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for police protection to level his field over disputed property (Gat No. 219/1). Although an interim injunction had previously been granted restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession, the court held that police protection is an extreme remedy reserved only for threats of injunction violations, not for enforcing actual possession or agricultural activities. The court directed the plaintiff to pursue contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A or execution petitions under Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for police protection to level his field over disputed property (Gat No. 219/1). Although an interim injunction had previously been granted restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession, the court held that police protection is an extreme remedy reserved only for threats of injunction violations, not for enforcing actual possession or agricultural activities. The court directed the plaintiff to pursue contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A or execution petitions under Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts