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
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
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
Issues
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts