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

Argument on Exh.____Unready

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

Specific Relief Act Section 38,

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

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

15-10-2024
Order on T.I.

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division,Miraj All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case