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
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
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
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 09-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 05-01-2026 | Hearing | |
| 10-11-2025 | Hearing | |
| 13-09-2025 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Explore other courts