Subhash Bhagaji Ambavne vs Ma Tahasildar Saheb Igatpuri — 83/2024

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 3839. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 07th May 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHNS290002382024

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

Next Hearing

07th May 2026

e-Filing Number

07-05-2024

Filing Number

452/2024

Filing Date

10-05-2024

Registration No

83/2024

Registration Date

10-05-2024

Court

Civil Court Senior Division, Igatpuri

Judge

1-CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION, IGATPURI

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 3839
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code Section 143(4)

Petitioner(s)

Subhash Bhagaji Ambavne

Adv. Jorvekar Sudhir Shivanath

Damodar Bhagaji Ambavne

Adv. Jorvekar Sudhir Shivanath

Suresh Bhagaji Ambavne

Adv. Jorvekar Sudhir Shivanath

Respondent(s)

Ma Tahasildar Saheb Igatpuri

Hearing History

Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION, IGATPURI

07-04-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

10-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

18-02-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

15-01-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

17-12-2025

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

Interim Orders

31-07-2025
Order on T.I.

Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction to stop road construction on their agricultural land (Gat No. 77) in Nashik district. The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima-facie case, irreparable loss, or favorable balance of convenience, noting that prior administrative orders (Vahivat Case 2023 and 2016) established the road as a long-existing public pathway. The court prioritized public interest in completing the government-funded rural development project over the plaintiffs' private grievance, allowing road work to proceed. 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 to stop road construction on their agricultural land (Gat No. 77) in Nashik district. The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima-facie case, irreparable loss, or favorable balance of convenience, noting that prior administrative orders (Vahivat Case 2023 and 2016) established the road as a long-existing public pathway. The court prioritized public interest in completing the government-funded rural development project over the plaintiffs' private grievance, allowing road work to proceed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Civil Court Senior Division, Igatpuri All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case