Sonyabapu Baban alias Tukaram Salgar vs Brijgopal Bhagwandas Tapadiya Advocate - Deshpande Sushil Sudhir — 115/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O.43R.1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 30th April 2026.
M.C.A. - Misc.Civil Appeal
CNR: MHSO010034582025
e-Filing Number
11-11-2025
Filing Number
1278/2025
Filing Date
14-11-2025
Registration No
115/2025
Registration Date
17-11-2025
Court
District and Session Court , Solapur
Judge
4-District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sonyabapu Baban alias Tukaram Salgar
Adv. Kulkarni Santosh Balwant
Padmini Baban alias Tukaram Salgar
Adv. Kulkarni Santosh Balwant
Suvarna Ramdas Deshmukh
Adv. Kulkarni Santosh Balwant
Savita Gorakh Kale
Adv. Kulkarni Santosh Balwant
Kavita Raosaheb Kale
Adv. Kulkarni Santosh Balwant
Sunita Rajendra Shirame
Adv. Kulkarni Santosh Balwant
Respondent(s)
Brijgopal Bhagwandas Tapadiya Advocate - Deshpande Sushil Sudhir
Hearing History
Judge: 4-District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 17-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-04-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: MCA 115/2025 Court Decision: The District Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal and upheld the trial court's rejection of their temporary injunction application. The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience for injunctive relief. Key Reasoning: The dispute involves adjacent agricultural fields in Solapur. The defendant changed his property's gat number from 146/2 to 146/1 through an authorized mutation entry and subsequently obtained an official measurement. The court held that merely changing a gat number (property identification) by competent revenue authority and conducting an official measurement does not constitute illegal obstruction of the plaintiffs' possession. The plaintiffs produced no material evidence demonstrating the defendant was actually interfering with their possession or illegally attempting to grab their land, making their claim of irreparable loss unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: MCA 115/2025 Court Decision: The District Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal and upheld the trial court's rejection of their temporary injunction application. The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience for injunctive relief. Key Reasoning: The dispute involves adjacent agricultural fields in Solapur. The defendant changed his property's gat number from 146/2 to 146/1 through an authorized mutation entry and subsequently obtained an official measurement. The court held that merely changing a gat number (property identification) by competent revenue authority and conducting an official measurement does not constitute illegal obstruction of the plaintiffs' possession. The plaintiffs produced no material evidence demonstrating the defendant was actually interfering with their possession or illegally attempting to grab their land, making their claim of irreparable loss unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts