Dilip Marutiray Shirsekar Etc 2 vs Devendra Ramakant Shirsekar Etc 51 Advocate - PAI SWAROOP NARAYAN — 20/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSI070001412020
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
Filing Number
29/2020
Filing Date
23-03-2020
Registration No
20/2020
Registration Date
23-03-2020
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Malvan
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malvan
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dilip Marutiray Shirsekar Etc 2
Adv. KULKARNI ULHAS BHALCHANDRA
Prashant Shashikant Shirshekar
Respondent(s)
Devendra Ramakant Shirsekar Etc 51 Advocate - PAI SWAROOP NARAYAN
Laxmibai Ramakant Shirsekar
Adv. PAI SWAROOP NARAYAN
Lalita Bhikaji Padelkar Nee Lalita Ramakant Shirsekar
Namrata Nandkumar Nayak Nee Jotsna Ramakant Shirsekar
Madhuri Madhukar Remje nee Hemangi Ramakant Shirsekar
Bharat Vaman Shirsekar
Bharati Vaman Shirsekar
Jayshri Madhur Khobrekar nee Jayshri Vaman Shirsekar
Dakshta Dhyanba Toraskar Nee Sonali Mangesh Shirshekar
Dharshana Kiran Malusare Nee Darshana Mangesh Shirsekar
Chaya Vilas Shirsekar Nee Chaya Maruti Shirsekar
Vijaymala Shashikant Shirsekar
Sonali Govind Takakar Nee Madhavi Shashikant Shirsekar
Kiran Shashikant Shirsekar
Santosh Dattatray Shirsekar
Vinayak Dattatrya Shirsekar
Bhavana Dattatrya Shirsekar
Supriya Jitendra Dichvalkar Nee Manjusha Dattatrya Shirsekar
Shalaka Suresh Shirsekar
Harshad Suresh Shirsekar
Vijay Vasant Shirsekar
Vilas Vasant Shirsekar
Sushil Vasant Shirsekar
Shubhangi Jagnnath Shirsekar
Kishor Jagnnath Shirsekar
Kiran Jagnnath Shirsekar
Adv. PAI SWAROOP NARAYAN
Pooja Vitthal Malandkar Nee Tilottama Jagnnath Shirsekar
Shilpa Rajan Paradkar Nee Shilpa Jagnnath Shirsekar
Pritama Janardan Kolambkar Nee Gulabi Shrikrushan Shirsekar
Hemlata Hirakant Dhuri Nee Simantini Shrikrushan Shirsekar
Shubhangi Chandrakant Juvatkar Nee Guja Shrikrishan Shirsekar
Archana Anant Deulkar Nee Kalyani Shrikrushan Shirsekar
Priya Pandurang Kolambkar Nee Surekha Shrikrushan Shirsekar
Gopal Shripad Shirsekar
Adv. PAI SWAROOP NARAYAN
Rajshri Rajan Shirsekar
Adv. PAI SWAROOP NARAYAN
Pradip Rajan Shirsekar
Adv. PAI SWAROOP NARAYAN
Roshan Rajan Shirsekar
Adv. PAI SWAROOP NARAYAN
Gauri Shailesh Patil Nee Gauri Rajan Shirsekar
Adv. PAI SWAROOP NARAYAN
Laxmi Ratnakar Shirsekar
Adv. PAI SWAROOP NARAYAN
Rupesh Ratnakar Shirsekar
Rashmi Ramesh Kadapkar Nee Udita Ratnakar Shirsekar
Asmita Gunaji Barde Nee Namita Ratnakar Shirsekar
Kavya Chetan Bane Nee Kavita Ratnakar Shirsekar
Rama Ganpat Mondkar
Laxman Ganpat Mondkar
Chandrakala Ramesh Patkar Nee Chandrakala Ganpat Mondkar
Shubhangi Jayandrath Lone Nee Shubhangi Ganpat Mondkar
Kalyani Hari Malandkar Nee Kalyani Ganpat Mondkar
Indirabai Chandrakant Paradkar Nee Pushpa Laxman Shirsekar
Laxmibai Vasudev Kubal Nee Laxmibai Laxman Shirsekar
Sharyu Shridhar Arondekar Nee Rajani Laxman Shirsekar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malvan
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 16-04-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 13-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 06-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 02-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain Defendant No. 15 from parking his vehicle in the common ancestral property open space and from obstructing wedding arrangements. The court held that since the disputed open space is common ancestral property in which all co-sharers have equal rights, and the plaintiffs failed to establish exclusive possession over it, no injunction could be granted against a co-sharer. The court found no prima facie case, balance of convenience favored the defendant, and no irreparable loss would result from rejection of the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain Defendant No. 15 from parking his vehicle in the common ancestral property open space and from obstructing wedding arrangements. The court held that since the disputed open space is common ancestral property in which all co-sharers have equal rights, and the plaintiffs failed to establish exclusive possession over it, no injunction could be granted against a co-sharer. The court found no prima facie case, balance of convenience favored the defendant, and no irreparable loss would result from rejection of the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts