Smt. Nirmala Sitaram Pawar Other 3 vs Shri. Santosh Sitaram Pawar Other 1 Advocate - yerunkar — 12/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 00. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 27th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHRG080001992017
Next Hearing
27th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
20/2017
Filing Date
13-02-2017
Registration No
12/2017
Registration Date
13-02-2017
Court
Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C., Khalpuar
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. KHALAPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Smt. Nirmala Sitaram Pawar Other 3
Adv. Mhatre V. T.
Smt. Usha Dilip Mande
Adv. Mhatre V. T.
Smt. Manisha Maruti Gaikawad
Adv. Mhatre V. T.
Shri. Satish Sitaram Pawar
Adv. Mhatre V. T.
Respondent(s)
Shri. Santosh Sitaram Pawar Other 1 Advocate - yerunkar
Me. Imkay Flora Through Pro. Shri. Manish Khandelwal
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. KHALAPUR
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Lok-Nyayalaya
Steps
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 16-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 14-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 09-03-2026 | Lok-Nyayalaya | |
| 16-02-2026 | Steps |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Civil Court at Khalapur granted the temporary injunction application. The court directed Defendant No. 2 (the tenant) to deposit all rent from the disputed lease property into the court rather than paying it to Defendant No. 1, effective from August 2018 onwards, pending final disposal of the suit. The court found the plaintiffs established a prima facie case that the lease deed was executed through misrepresentation, balance of convenience favored them, and they would suffer irreparable loss without the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Civil Court at Khalapur granted the temporary injunction application. The court directed Defendant No. 2 (the tenant) to deposit all rent from the disputed lease property into the court rather than paying it to Defendant No. 1, effective from August 2018 onwards, pending final disposal of the suit. The court found the plaintiffs established a prima facie case that the lease deed was executed through misrepresentation, balance of convenience favored them, and they would suffer irreparable loss without the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts