Harshil Ramnik Gala and other vs Lalita Santosh Adole and others Advocate - Bharindwal Omprakash V. — 63/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section cpc. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 04th May 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHNS230014182020
Next Hearing
04th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
101/2020
Filing Date
22-10-2020
Registration No
63/2020
Registration Date
22-10-2020
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Igatpuri
Judge
4-Civil Judge, Senior Division
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Harshil Ramnik Gala and other
Adv. Shinde Jitendra N.
Amita Arvind Bheda
Arvind Vershi Bheda
Tanishka Devleopers prop. Nandakumar Vasantrao Jadhav
Dashrath Sukhdev Bhagade
Anuja Mukund Malani
Ramesh singh Gopalsingh Pardeshi
Respondent(s)
Lalita Santosh Adole and others Advocate - Bharindwal Omprakash V.
Santosh Bhagwat Adole
Sunil Dnyandev Gade
Gramsevak Titoli
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Civil Judge, Senior Division
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Issues | |
| 10-03-2026 | Issues | |
| 09-03-2026 | Issues | |
| 12-02-2026 | Issues | |
| 19-01-2026 | Issues |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Harshil & Others v. Lalita & Others | Reg. Civil Suit No. 63/2020 | Nashik District Court | 16.12.2020 The court allowed the temporary injunction application, restraining defendants Nos. 01 and 02 from raising unauthorized construction on the disputed "suit way" (a 9-meter-wide road sanctioned for access to plaintiffs' properties). The court found a prima facie case of encroachment, as the plaintiffs hold clear title with completion certificates, while defendants lack authorization documents for construction on the agricultural land in block no. 76. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Harshil & Others v. Lalita & Others | Reg. Civil Suit No. 63/2020 | Nashik District Court | 16.12.2020 The court allowed the temporary injunction application, restraining defendants Nos. 01 and 02 from raising unauthorized construction on the disputed "suit way" (a 9-meter-wide road sanctioned for access to plaintiffs' properties). The court found a prima facie case of encroachment, as the plaintiffs hold clear title with completion certificates, while defendants lack authorization documents for construction on the agricultural land in block no. 76. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts