Subhash Babu Dhabugade etc vs Bhimrao Krushna Dhabugade Advocate - Patil Krishana Vithoba — 800134/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O-39,R-1. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSN090006152015
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
800213/2015
Filing Date
08-07-2015
Registration No
800134/2015
Registration Date
13-07-2015
Court
Civil Court Junior Division,Tasgaon
Judge
2-Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Tasgaon
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Subhash Babu Dhabugade etc
Adv. Shinde Vikramsinh Balasaheb
Dayndev Laxman Dhabugade
Adv. Shinde Vikramsinh Balasaheb
Respondent(s)
Bhimrao Krushna Dhabugade Advocate - Patil Krishana Vithoba
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Tasgaon
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 02-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 16-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 08-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 01-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary The application for temporary injunction has been rejected. The court found that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case, as the Mamlatdar's Court properly decided the dispute on merits after site inspection and found evidence of a 10 ft x 300 ft way, which the plaintiffs had obstructed. The defendant validly exercised his right following due procedure of law, and the plaintiffs should have challenged the Mamlatdar's order through proper revisional channels, not a civil suit. Costs awarded in cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The application for temporary injunction has been rejected. The court found that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case, as the Mamlatdar's Court properly decided the dispute on merits after site inspection and found evidence of a 10 ft x 300 ft way, which the plaintiffs had obstructed. The defendant validly exercised his right following due procedure of law, and the plaintiffs should have challenged the Mamlatdar's order through proper revisional channels, not a civil suit. Costs 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