Vitthal Devaji Koli vs Madhukar Devaji Koli Advocate - Thakur V. C. — 30/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 00. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHRG060001102023

Hearing

Next Hearing

08th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

50/2023

Filing Date

01-02-2023

Registration No

30/2023

Registration Date

01-02-2023

Court

Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C., Pen

Judge

3-Jt.Civil Judge J D and J M F C Pen

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 00

Petitioner(s)

Vitthal Devaji Koli

Adv. Deshmukh S.H.

Respondent(s)

Madhukar Devaji Koli Advocate - Thakur V. C.

Atmaram Devaji Koli

Bhaskar Devaji Koli

Laxmibai Datta Aawaskar

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Jt.Civil Judge J D and J M F C Pen

14-03-2026

Hearing

09-03-2026

Hearing

05-01-2026

Hearing

10-11-2025

Hearing

13-09-2025

Hearing

Interim Orders

18-07-2023
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary Vitthal v. Madhukar & Ors (R.C.S. No. 30-2023) Outcome: Interim injunction application REJECTED. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for interim injunction under Order 39 CPC seeking to restrain defendants from interfering with his possession and easementary rights over joint family property and obstructing Jio Infocom employees' mobile tower construction. The court found no prima facie case, as only a preliminary partition decree exists (not final decree), and the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive use rights without proper partition. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to provide necessary documentation regarding his relationship with Jio Infocom and lacked appropriate permissions for non-agricultural use on agricultural land, coming before the court without clean hands. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Vitthal v. Madhukar & Ors (R.C.S. No. 30-2023) Outcome: Interim injunction application REJECTED. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for interim injunction under Order 39 CPC seeking to restrain defendants from interfering with his possession and easementary rights over joint family property and obstructing Jio Infocom employees' mobile tower construction. The court found no prima facie case, as only a preliminary partition decree exists (not final decree), and the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive use rights without proper partition. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to provide necessary documentation regarding his relationship with Jio Infocom and lacked appropriate permissions for non-agricultural use on agricultural land, coming before the court without clean hands. 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 Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C., Pen All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case