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.

Argument on Exh.____Unready Next hearing 16-Apr-2026 this date has passed

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHPU240019442022

Filing Number

307/2022

Filing Date

15-Oct-2022

Registration No

242/2022

Registration Date

15-Oct-2022

Court

Civil Court,Ghodegaon

Judge

2-2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

Last updated 06-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief (Amendment) Act Section 38

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Maruti Shankar Bhaskar

    Adv. Pokharkar Anil Gangaram

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ganesh Genbhao Bhaskar Advocate - Udawant Chetan Balasaheb

  2. 2.Kisan Shankar Bhaskar

    Adv. Udawant Chetan Balasaheb

Case History

  1. 16-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  3. 16-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  4. 06-Jan-2026

    W.S. and Say

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  5. 28-Nov-2025

    W.S. and Say

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  6. 16-Oct-2025

    W.S. and Say

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  7. 08-Sep-2025

    W.S. and Say

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  8. 29-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  9. 03-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C. Ghodegaon, Pune

  10. 15-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  11. 22-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  12. 22-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  13. 22-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  14. 26-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  15. 18-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  16. 09-May-2024

    Evidence

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  17. 15-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  18. 20-Feb-2024

    Issues

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  19. 10-Jan-2024

    Issues

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  20. 05-Dec-2023

    Issues

    Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C. Ghodegaon, Pune

  21. 22-Nov-2023

    Issues

    Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C. Ghodegaon, Pune

  22. 20-Sep-2023

    Issues

    Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C. Ghodegaon, Pune

  23. 26-Jul-2023

    Issues

    Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C. Ghodegaon, Pune

  24. 10-Jun-2023

    Issues

    Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C. Ghodegaon, Pune

  25. 15-Apr-2023

    Issues

    Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C. Ghodegaon, Pune

  26. 27-Feb-2023

    Issues

    Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C. Ghodegaon, Pune

  27. 16-Jan-2023

    Order on T.I.View PDF

    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.

  28. 16-Jan-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  29. 13-Jan-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  30. 11-Jan-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  31. 04-Jan-2023

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  32. 26-Dec-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  33. 23-Dec-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  34. 20-Dec-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  35. 15-Dec-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  36. 12-Dec-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  37. 29-Nov-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  38. 14-Nov-2022

    W.S. and Say

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  39. 05-Nov-2022

    Awaiting Summons

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  40. 31-Oct-2022

    Awaiting Summons

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  41. 19-Oct-2022

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  42. 19-Oct-2022

    Awaiting Summons

    2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.m.f.c., Ghodegaon.

  43. 15-Oct-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  44. 15-Oct-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 242/2022

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case