Dnyaneshwar Shankarrao Dhatrak vs Archana Gopal Varade Advocate - Sonawane A.K. — 173/2024

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 05th May 2026.

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

CNR: MHNS280011532024

Evidence Part Heard

Next Hearing

05th May 2026

e-Filing Number

23-10-2024

Filing Number

1121/2024

Filing Date

11-11-2024

Registration No

173/2024

Registration Date

11-11-2024

Court

Civil Court Senior Division, Sinnar

Judge

1-Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34

Petitioner(s)

Dnyaneshwar Shankarrao Dhatrak

Adv. TAMBE KRISHNAKANT SHANKAR

Ganesh Shankarrao Dhatrak

Adv. TAMBE KRISHNAKANT SHANKAR

Bharat Shankarrao Dhatrak

Adv. TAMBE KRISHNAKANT SHANKAR

Manoj Shankarrao Dhatrak

Adv. TAMBE KRISHNAKANT SHANKAR

Respondent(s)

Archana Gopal Varade Advocate - Sonawane A.K.

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division, Sinnar

18-04-2026

Evidence Part Heard

04-04-2026

Evidence Part Heard

10-03-2026

Evidence Part Heard

03-02-2026

Evidence Part Heard

09-12-2025

Evidence Part Heard

Interim Orders

09-05-2025
Order on T.I.

Summary The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the suspension of the liquor license for Hotel Abhishek. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss—the three essential requirements for granting an injunction. The court noted that the property was purchased in the deceased's name alone with no documentary evidence of joint family purchase, and the plaintiffs suppressed a court-issued heirship certificate naming the defendants as legal heirs, constituting lack of good faith in approaching the court. 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 the suspension of the liquor license for Hotel Abhishek. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss—the three essential requirements for granting an injunction. The court noted that the property was purchased in the deceased's name alone with no documentary evidence of joint family purchase, and the plaintiffs suppressed a court-issued heirship certificate naming the defendants as legal heirs, constituting lack of good faith in approaching the court. 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