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

Order on Exh

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 2,

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

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

04-01-2023
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Karjat All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case