Pravin Tukaram Patil vs Sanjay Dattatrey Pingale — 16/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHRG080002022025
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
38/2025
Filing Date
14-02-2025
Registration No
16/2025
Registration Date
14-02-2025
Court
Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C., Khalpuar
Judge
1-1 Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Khalpuar
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pravin Tukaram Patil
Adv. A. L. Balkawade
Jayashri Pravin Patil
Respondent(s)
Sanjay Dattatrey Pingale
Shaila Sanjay Pingale
Hearing History
Judge: 1-1 Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Khalpuar
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 21-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case 16/2025 Summary Pravin Tukaram Patil and Jayashri Pravin Patil sought a temporary injunction against Sanjay Dattatrey Pingale and Shaila Sanjay Pingale to halt construction work on a 3-foot-wide lane adjoining the petitioners' property. The respondents were undertaking renovation of their old house and construction activities (load-bearing work, iron bar installation) that threatened to block the shared lane and potentially damage the petitioners' structure. The court found the petitioners had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience favored them. The petition was allowed and temporary injunction was granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 16/2025 Summary Pravin Tukaram Patil and Jayashri Pravin Patil sought a temporary injunction against Sanjay Dattatrey Pingale and Shaila Sanjay Pingale to halt construction work on a 3-foot-wide lane adjoining the petitioners' property. The respondents were undertaking renovation of their old house and construction activities (load-bearing work, iron bar installation) that threatened to block the shared lane and potentially damage the petitioners' structure. The court found the petitioners had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience favored them. The petition was allowed and temporary injunction was granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts