Ramesh Narayan Dagade vs Lalit Chandulal Oswal Advocate - Oswal C.B. — 130/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2,. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHRG070013052021
Next Hearing
28th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
289/2021
Filing Date
24-11-2021
Registration No
130/2021
Registration Date
24-11-2021
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)
Ramesh Narayan Dagade
Adv. Jadhav Laxman Dharmraj
Respondent(s)
Lalit Chandulal Oswal Advocate - Oswal C.B.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. KARJAT
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 30-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 17-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary The Civil Judge rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction in Regular Civil Suit No. 130-2021 (Ramesh Narayan Dagade vs. Lalit Chandulal Oswal). The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable harm, as the plaintiff could not prove full payment under the unregistered agreement dated 15/12/2009 and filed the suit 11 years after the contractual performance deadline had expired. Application Exh.5 was rejected with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Civil Judge rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction in Regular Civil Suit No. 130-2021 (Ramesh Narayan Dagade vs. Lalit Chandulal Oswal). The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable harm, as the plaintiff could not prove full payment under the unregistered agreement dated 15/12/2009 and filed the suit 11 years after the contractual performance deadline had expired. Application Exh.5 was rejected with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts