Maruti Shankar Bhaskar vs Ganesh Genbhao Bhaskar Advocate - Udawant Chetan Balasaheb — 242/2022
Case under Specific Relief (amendment) Act Section 38. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHPU240019442022
Next Hearing
16th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
307/2022
Filing Date
15-10-2022
Registration No
242/2022
Registration Date
15-10-2022
Court
Civil Court,Ghodegaon
Judge
2-2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C., Ghodegaon.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Maruti Shankar Bhaskar
Adv. Pokharkar Anil Gangaram
Respondent(s)
Ganesh Genbhao Bhaskar Advocate - Udawant Chetan Balasaheb
Kisan Shankar Bhaskar
Adv. Udawant Chetan Balasaheb
Hearing History
Judge: 2-2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C., Ghodegaon.
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 16-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 06-01-2026 | W.S. and Say | |
| 28-11-2025 | W.S. and Say | |
| 16-10-2025 | W.S. and Say |
Interim Orders
Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction against Defendant No. 1. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the evidence suggests that Defendant No. 2 (the co-owner of the disputed agricultural property) is conducting the construction, not Defendant No. 1 as claimed. Since the balance of convenience favors Defendant No. 2 who would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction were granted, the application was dismissed with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction against Defendant No. 1. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the evidence suggests that Defendant No. 2 (the co-owner of the disputed agricultural property) is conducting the construction, not Defendant No. 1 as claimed. Since the balance of convenience favors Defendant No. 2 who would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction were granted, the application was dismissed with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts