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
e-Filing Number
23-07-2024
Filing Number
759/2024
Filing Date
24-Jul-2024
Registration No
122/2024
Registration Date
24-Jul-2024
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Sinnar
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
Last updated 29-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Jayashri Khanderav Taskar
Adv. VILAS TASKAR
-
2.Rajshree Dilip Kasar
Adv. VILAS TASKAR
-
3.Bhagyashree Somnath More
Adv. VILAS TASKAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.Asha Arun Gadakh Advocate - Deshmukh Vaibhav S.
Case History
-
05-May-2026
Next hearingPending
-
07-Apr-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
10-Mar-2026
Evidence Part Heard
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
17-Feb-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
22-Jan-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
23-Dec-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
19-Nov-2025
Issues
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
17-Oct-2025
Issues
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
28-Aug-2025
Issues
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
23-Jul-2025
Issues
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
08-May-2025
Issues
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
01-Apr-2025
Order on T.I.View PDF
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.
-
01-Apr-2025
Issues
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
17-Mar-2025
Order on Exh
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
04-Mar-2025
Order on Exh
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
24-Feb-2025
Order on Exh
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
11-Feb-2025
Order on Exh
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
01-Feb-2025
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
07-Jan-2025
Issues
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
21-Dec-2024
Reply/Say
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
26-Nov-2024
Reply/Say
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
24-Oct-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
19-Sep-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
27-Aug-2024
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
27-Aug-2024
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
13-Aug-2024
Awaiting Summons
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
06-Aug-2024
Awaiting Summons
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
31-Jul-2024
Awaiting Summons
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
30-Jul-2024
Awaiting Summons
Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar
-
24-Jul-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Jul-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 122/2024
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.
Explore other courts