Shital Vyanktesh Kodmur vs Vishnu Pavansa Kokane Advocate - Rashinkar Anand S. — 140/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Additional W.S.. Next hearing: 29th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHNS190011302022
Next Hearing
29th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
210/2022
Filing Date
15-07-2022
Registration No
140/2022
Registration Date
15-07-2022
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Yeola
Judge
2-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shital Vyanktesh Kodmur
Adv. Patil Pradip S.
Respondent(s)
Vishnu Pavansa Kokane Advocate - Rashinkar Anand S.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Additional W.S.
Amended Plaint
Steps
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Additional W.S. | |
| 23-03-2026 | Amended Plaint | |
| 10-03-2026 | Steps | |
| 25-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 05-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The plaintiff's application seeking an injunction to restrain the defendant from obstructing her possession, construction, and measurement of a disputed property (C.T.S. No. 2774) in Yeola, Nashik was rejected. The court found the plaintiff lacks a prima facie case because the property was jointly purchased by two co-owners in 1994, and the plaintiff's 2020 purchase of only a half undivided share without clear boundary demarcation does not establish her right to prevent the defendant (the co-owner's heir) from using his portion, particularly as no partition occurred between the original owners or their legal heirs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The plaintiff's application seeking an injunction to restrain the defendant from obstructing her possession, construction, and measurement of a disputed property (C.T.S. No. 2774) in Yeola, Nashik was rejected. The court found the plaintiff lacks a prima facie case because the property was jointly purchased by two co-owners in 1994, and the plaintiff's 2020 purchase of only a half undivided share without clear boundary demarcation does not establish her right to prevent the defendant (the co-owner's heir) from using his portion, particularly as no partition occurred between the original owners or their legal heirs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts