Vishwanath Dattatray Mhase vs Dattatray Waman Patil etc. Advocate - Prasad Patil, Sharad Shinde, Rajendra Nigudkar — 49/2020
Disposed: Uncontested--WITHDRAWN on 27th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHRG070005242020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
101/2020
Filing Date
20-03-2020
Registration No
49/2020
Registration Date
20-03-2020
Court
Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Karjat
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. KARJAT
Decision Date
27th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--WITHDRAWN
Petitioner(s)
Vishwanath Dattatray Mhase
Adv. Kshirsagar Manoj Kisan
Respondent(s)
Dattatray Waman Patil etc. Advocate - Prasad Patil, Sharad Shinde, Rajendra Nigudkar
Nikunj Chetan Shaha
Kumud Dattatrey Mhase
Deepak Pradip Mhase
Yogesh Pradip Mhase
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. KARJAT
Disposed
Order on Exh
Filing of Affidavit
Filing of Affidavit
Filing of Affidavit
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-04-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 14-03-2026 | Filing of Affidavit | |
| 10-03-2026 | Filing of Affidavit | |
| 09-02-2026 | Filing of Affidavit |
Final Orders / Judgements
Order on T.I.
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition seeking temporary injunction against the defendants regarding disputed property ownership. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish possession (tabekabjа) of the land plots (survey nos. 27/1+3A/2 and 27/1B) originally belonging to Dattarjay Panduring Mhsе, as required under CPC Order 39 Rule 1. The court determined that documentary evidence (7/12 extracts and transfer records nos. 1864, 2307, and 2630) did not sufficiently prove the plaintiff's current possession and ownership rights, and therefore rejected the injunction petition without prejudice to the merits of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition seeking temporary injunction against the defendants regarding disputed property ownership. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish possession (tabekabjа) of the land plots (survey nos. 27/1+3A/2 and 27/1B) originally belonging to Dattarjay Panduring Mhsе, as required under CPC Order 39 Rule 1. The court determined that documentary evidence (7/12 extracts and transfer records nos. 1864, 2307, and 2630) did not sufficiently prove the plaintiff's current possession and ownership rights, and therefore rejected the injunction petition without prejudice to the merits of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts