Madhukar Hujara Torane vs Narayan Hujara Torane Advocate - Hadimani Ishwarappa Ogeppa — 2/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section partition. Status: Awaiting Report of Commissioner. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
Final Decree
CNR: MHSN080013922019
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
318/2019
Filing Date
05-11-2019
Registration No
2/2019
Registration Date
05-11-2019
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Jath
Judge
2-Jt.CIVIL JUDGE, Jr.Dn.,JATH
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Madhukar Hujara Torane
Adv. Shegunshi Shivshankar N
Respondent(s)
Narayan Hujara Torane Advocate - Hadimani Ishwarappa Ogeppa
Smt. Suman Sayaji Torane
Sachin Sayaji Torane
Ajay Sayaji Torane
Sou. Sharmila Sunil Surve
Smt. Urmila Rakesh kamble
Ashok Tukaram Torane
Sanjay Tukaram Torane
Bharat Tukaram Torane
Vijay Tukaram Torane
Hanmant Hujar Torane
Aatubai Hujara Torane
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt.CIVIL JUDGE, Jr.Dn.,JATH
Awaiting Report of Commissioner
Awaiting Report of Commissioner
Awaiting Report of Commissioner
Awaiting Report of Commissioner
Awaiting Report of Commissioner
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Awaiting Report of Commissioner | |
| 17-02-2026 | Awaiting Report of Commissioner | |
| 15-01-2026 | Awaiting Report of Commissioner | |
| 30-09-2025 | Awaiting Report of Commissioner | |
| 26-08-2025 | Awaiting Report of Commissioner |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The court rejected the interim injunction applications filed by Joint Defendants 7(d) and 9 seeking to stay the decree holder's construction on the disputed house property. The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima-facie case, the balance of convenience did not favor them, and they suffered a two-month delay in filing without satisfactory explanation. The applications were dismissed with costs imposed in the cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The court rejected the interim injunction applications filed by Joint Defendants 7(d) and 9 seeking to stay the decree holder's construction on the disputed house property. The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima-facie case, the balance of convenience did not favor them, and they suffered a two-month delay in filing without satisfactory explanation. The applications were dismissed with costs imposed in the 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