Vasant Tukaram Dhavan vs Anant Tukaram Dhavan Advocate - Metha M. V. — 1200124/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 06th May 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHRG110022262015
Next Hearing
06th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
202/2016
Filing Date
16-07-2016
Registration No
1200124/2016
Registration Date
16-07-2016
Court
Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C., Mangaon
Judge
2-Jt. C. J. J. D. and J. M. F. C. Mangaon
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vasant Tukaram Dhavan
Adv. Sameer Chavan
Ashok Tukaram Dhavan
Sharmila Shashikant Dhavan
Sudeshana Shashikant Dhavan
Shalini Shashikant Dhavan
Dagadu Tukaram Dhavan
Shantaram Tukaram Dhavan
Dhanaji Tukaram Dhavan
Respondent(s)
Anant Tukaram Dhavan Advocate - Metha M. V.
Anand Dhundiraj Jog
Sudhir Chandrakant Darode
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. C. J. J. D. and J. M. F. C. Mangaon
Arguments
Evidence Part Heard
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 24-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 02-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 05-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Regular Civil Suit No. 124 of 2016 (Vasant Dhawan v. Anant Dhawan), decided on 25/04/2017, the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC was rejected and dismissed. The court found no prima facie case in the plaintiff's favor, holding that the plaintiffs had consented to and received consideration for the sale agreement (No. 1384/2014) regarding the disputed property (Survey No. 88, Hissa No. 2/C) to defendants 2-4, as evidenced by bank statements and signed documents. The previously granted status quo against defendants 2-4 was vacated, with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Regular Civil Suit No. 124 of 2016 (Vasant Dhawan v. Anant Dhawan), decided on 25/04/2017, the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC was rejected and dismissed. The court found no prima facie case in the plaintiff's favor, holding that the plaintiffs had consented to and received consideration for the sale agreement (No. 1384/2014) regarding the disputed property (Survey No. 88, Hissa No. 2/C) to defendants 2-4, as evidenced by bank statements and signed documents. The previously granted status quo against defendants 2-4 was vacated, with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts