Suryakant Laxman Mhamunkar vs Shri Nandkumar Baburao Palande Advocate - Gaikwad D.R. — 120/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2,. Status: Order on Exh. Next hearing: 29th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHRG070011862022
Next Hearing
29th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
270/2022
Filing Date
30-08-2022
Registration No
120/2022
Registration Date
30-08-2022
Court
Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Karjat
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. KARJAT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Suryakant Laxman Mhamunkar
Sushil Surykant Mhamunkar
Respondent(s)
Shri Nandkumar Baburao Palande Advocate - Gaikwad D.R.
Rahul Manohar Palande
Grup Grampanchayat Pashane Sarpanch
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. KARJAT
Order on Exh
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 10-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 23-01-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 02-01-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 15-12-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for interim relief (temporary injunction) in this property dispute case. The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they could not provide clear documentary evidence linking house no.333 to the disputed land (gat no.164/2/D), and a panchanama inspection revealed no structure existed on the property. Since no prima facie case was established, the court also found no balance of convenience or risk of irreparable loss in plaintiffs' favor, making the application for temporary injunction dismissible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for interim relief (temporary injunction) in this property dispute case. The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they could not provide clear documentary evidence linking house no.333 to the disputed land (gat no.164/2/D), and a panchanama inspection revealed no structure existed on the property. Since no prima facie case was established, the court also found no balance of convenience or risk of irreparable loss in plaintiffs' favor, making the application for temporary injunction dismissible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts