Harishchandra Gurudas Tambe vs Suresh Punaji Tambe Advocate - Chavan Nilesh Kesari — 12/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHRT090001182025

Issues

Next Hearing

16th June 2026

e-Filing Number

21-03-2025

Filing Number

21/2025

Filing Date

24-03-2025

Registration No

12/2025

Registration Date

24-03-2025

Court

Civil Judge Junior Division , Lanja

Judge

1-Civil JudgeJ.D. J.M.F.C LANJA

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 38

Petitioner(s)

Harishchandra Gurudas Tambe

Adv. Jedhe Leena Ganpat

Respondent(s)

Suresh Punaji Tambe Advocate - Chavan Nilesh Kesari

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil JudgeJ.D. J.M.F.C LANJA

15-04-2026

Issues

13-04-2026

Order on Exh

04-04-2026

Order on Exh

12-03-2026

Order on Exh

10-03-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

Interim Orders

15-04-2026
Order on T.I.

Case Summary Case: Harishchandra Gurudas Tambe v. Suresh Punaji Tambe (R.C.S. No. 12/2025) Outcome: The Court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima-facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss. Critically, the court held that because the plaintiff's father's previous suit (R.C.S. No. 45/2012) for perpetual injunction on the same properties was dismissed for default in 2018, the plaintiff is barred from filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The only remedy available was to seek restoration of the dismissed suit, which the plaintiff did not pursue successfully. Both parties shall bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case: Harishchandra Gurudas Tambe v. Suresh Punaji Tambe (R.C.S. No. 12/2025) Outcome: The Court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima-facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss. Critically, the court held that because the plaintiff's father's previous suit (R.C.S. No. 45/2012) for perpetual injunction on the same properties was dismissed for default in 2018, the plaintiff is barred from filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The only remedy available was to seek restoration of the dismissed suit, which the plaintiff did not pursue successfully. Both parties shall bear their own costs. 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 Junior Division , Lanja All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case