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

Evidence

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

Specific Relief Act Section 1

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

21-04-2026

Evidence

12-03-2026

Evidence

05-02-2026

Evidence

13-12-2025

Evidence

21-11-2025

Evidence

Interim Orders

03-04-2025
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

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

Explore other courts

Search Another Case