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
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
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
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts