Anant Kondiba Shete vs Dashrath Dhondiba Shete Advocate - Minde Rajesh Baban — 82/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 37. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 02nd May 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHPU120003822022
Next Hearing
02nd May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
114/2022
Filing Date
05-05-2022
Registration No
82/2022
Registration Date
05-05-2022
Court
Civil Court,Bhor
Judge
2-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. BHOR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anant Kondiba Shete
Adv. Kondhalkar Uday Sopan
Respondent(s)
Dashrath Dhondiba Shete Advocate - Minde Rajesh Baban
Shrirang Jaysing Shete
Adv. Minde Rajesh Baban-MAH/964/
Archana Pravin Shete
Adv. Minde Rajesh Baban
Hearing History
Judge: 2-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. BHOR
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
For Referal to the Special Mediation Drive Mediation For the Nation _Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | Issues | |
| 07-03-2026 | Issues | |
| 21-02-2026 | Issues | |
| 17-01-2026 | Issues | |
| 20-12-2025 | For Referal to the Special Mediation Drive Mediation For the Nation _Unready |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case: Regular Civil Suit No. 82/2022 - Anant Kondiba Shete v. Sharath Dhondiba Shete & Others Outcome: The petition for temporary injunction is dismissed. The court rejected the plaintiff's request for an interim order to prevent the defendants from blocking or obstructing access to the disputed property (Survey No. 593) and the pathway through Survey No. 592. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove requisite rights over the claimed pathway through adequate evidence, particularly regarding prescription or necessity under the Easement Act, 1882. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: Regular Civil Suit No. 82/2022 - Anant Kondiba Shete v. Sharath Dhondiba Shete & Others Outcome: The petition for temporary injunction is dismissed. The court rejected the plaintiff's request for an interim order to prevent the defendants from blocking or obstructing access to the disputed property (Survey No. 593) and the pathway through Survey No. 592. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove requisite rights over the claimed pathway through adequate evidence, particularly regarding prescription or necessity under the Easement Act, 1882. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts