Jayashri Khanderav Taskar vs Asha Arun Gadakh Advocate - Deshmukh Vaibhav S. — 122/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 15. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 05th May 2026.

Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)

CNR: MHNS280007662024

Evidence Part Heard

Next Hearing

05th May 2026

e-Filing Number

23-07-2024

Filing Number

759/2024

Filing Date

24-07-2024

Registration No

122/2024

Registration Date

24-07-2024

Court

Civil Court Senior Division, Sinnar

Judge

1-Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 15

Petitioner(s)

Jayashri Khanderav Taskar

Adv. VILAS TASKAR

Rajshree Dilip Kasar

Adv. VILAS TASKAR

Bhagyashree Somnath More

Adv. VILAS TASKAR

Respondent(s)

Asha Arun Gadakh Advocate - Deshmukh Vaibhav S.

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar

07-04-2026

Evidence Part Heard

10-03-2026

Evidence Part Heard

17-02-2026

Evidence

22-01-2026

Evidence

23-12-2025

Evidence

Interim Orders

01-04-2025
Order on T.I.

Summary The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain defendants from dealing with ancestral properties. The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they had voluntarily executed registered relinquishment deeds in 2013 without providing evidence of fraud, and filed the suit over a decade later without reasonable explanation for the delay. The balance of convenience favored the defendants, and the court held that granting the injunction would cause comparative hardship to defendant No.1 rather than the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain defendants from dealing with ancestral properties. The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they had voluntarily executed registered relinquishment deeds in 2013 without providing evidence of fraud, and filed the suit over a decade later without reasonable explanation for the delay. The balance of convenience favored the defendants, and the court held that granting the injunction would cause comparative hardship to defendant No.1 rather than the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Senior Division, Sinnar All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case