Parshuram Babu Kabade vs Ratankumar Yallappa Kabade Advocate - Patil Bhaskar Nana — 196/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38,. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 07th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSN060016832023
Next Hearing
07th July 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
409/2023
Filing Date
11-07-2023
Registration No
196/2023
Registration Date
17-07-2023
Court
Civil Court Junior Division,Miraj
Judge
3-2nd JT. CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and J.M.F.C. MIRAJ
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Parshuram Babu Kabade
Adv. Killedar C.S
Bharti Parshuram Kabade
Respondent(s)
Ratankumar Yallappa Kabade Advocate - Patil Bhaskar Nana
Sadashiv Babu Kabade
Kasturi Yallappa Kabade
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd JT. CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and J.M.F.C. MIRAJ
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 19-11-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 26-09-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 02-05-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 04-04-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary The Civil Judge Junior Division at Miraj rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction against the defendants regarding disputed agricultural properties. Although the court found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction were denied, it determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie possession of the suit properties and that the balance of convenience did not favor them, as the defendants are co-owners with rights in the disputed ancestral properties. Costs were awarded in cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Civil Judge Junior Division at Miraj rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction against the defendants regarding disputed agricultural properties. Although the court found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction were denied, it determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie possession of the suit properties and that the balance of convenience did not favor them, as the defendants are co-owners with rights in the disputed ancestral properties. Costs were awarded in cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts