Vijaya Sarjerao Patil vs Amar Kiran Velapure Advocate - Deokar Saurabh Anna — 311/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 39,. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 13th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSN150015542023
Next Hearing
13th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1329/2023
Filing Date
16-10-2023
Registration No
311/2023
Registration Date
17-10-2023
Court
Civil Judge Senior Division Vita
Judge
2-Jt Civil Judge Jr Dn JMFC Vita
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vijaya Sarjerao Patil
Adv. Mahadik Bapusaheb Mahadeo
Respondent(s)
Amar Kiran Velapure Advocate - Deokar Saurabh Anna
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt Civil Judge Jr Dn JMFC Vita
Evidence Part Heard
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 26-02-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 02-02-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 29-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case: R.Di.Mu. No. 311/2023 (Vijaya Patil v. Amar Velapure) Court: Joint Civil Judge Jr. Division & JMFC, Khanapur, Sangli District Date: 10.03.2026 Outcome: The defendant's interim relief (temporary injunction) petition seeking to restrain the plaintiff from unauthorized construction on jointly-held property was dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff had obtained an earlier interim order (dated 04.04.2024) restraining the defendant from construction, and the defendant had complied. However, the plaintiff subsequently resumed construction in violation of equity principles. The court rejected the defendant's application, citing "unclean hands" doctrine, and costs were imposed on the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: R.Di.Mu. No. 311/2023 (Vijaya Patil v. Amar Velapure) Court: Joint Civil Judge Jr. Division & JMFC, Khanapur, Sangli District Date: 10.03.2026 Outcome: The defendant's interim relief (temporary injunction) petition seeking to restrain the plaintiff from unauthorized construction on jointly-held property was dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff had obtained an earlier interim order (dated 04.04.2024) restraining the defendant from construction, and the defendant had complied. However, the plaintiff subsequently resumed construction in violation of equity principles. The court rejected the defendant's application, citing "unclean hands" doctrine, and costs were imposed on the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts