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.

Case disposed

M.C.A. - Misc.Civil Appeal

CNR: MHSO010034582025

e-Filing Number

11-11-2025

Filing Number

1278/2025

Filing Date

14-Nov-2025

Registration No

115/2025

Registration Date

17-Nov-2025

Court

District and Session Court , Solapur

Judge

4-District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge

Decision Date

30-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O.43R.1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sonyabapu Baban alias Tukaram Salgar

    Adv. Kulkarni Santosh Balwant

  2. 2.Padmini Baban alias Tukaram Salgar

    Adv. Kulkarni Santosh Balwant

  3. 3.Suvarna Ramdas Deshmukh

    Adv. Kulkarni Santosh Balwant

  4. 4.Savita Gorakh Kale

    Adv. Kulkarni Santosh Balwant

  5. 5.Kavita Raosaheb Kale

    Adv. Kulkarni Santosh Balwant

  6. 6.Sunita Rajendra Shirame

    Adv. Kulkarni Santosh Balwant

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Brijgopal Bhagwandas Tapadiya Advocate - Deshpande Sushil Sudhir

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    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.

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge

  4. 28-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge

  5. 17-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge

  6. 07-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge

  7. 02-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge

  8. 27-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge

  9. 13-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge

  10. 06-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge

  11. 13-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge

  12. 30-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge

  13. 09-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge

  14. 05-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge

  15. 17-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  16. 14-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 115/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case