Digambar Dattatray Salglar vs Brijgopal Bhagwandas Tapadiya Advocate - Deshpande Sushil Sudhir — 116/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O.43R.1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 30th April 2026.
M.C.A. - Misc.Civil Appeal
CNR: MHSO010034592025
e-Filing Number
13-11-2025
Filing Number
1279/2025
Filing Date
14-Nov-2025
Registration No
116/2025
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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Digambar Dattatray Salglar
Adv. Kulkarni Santosh Balwant
Respondent(s)
-
1.Brijgopal Bhagwandas Tapadiya Advocate - Deshpande Sushil Sudhir
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: MCA 116/2025 Court Decision: The District Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the trial court's rejection of the temporary injunction application. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience for granting temporary injunction. Key Reasoning: The court held that while the defendant's property field number was changed from Gat No.146/2 to Gat No.146/1 through a mutation entry sanctioned by competent authority, this change alone did not constitute illegal conduct requiring injunction. The court found no material evidence showing the defendant was actually obstructing the plaintiff's possession or illegally attempting to grab the plaintiff's suit property. Mere measurement of the defendant's property by revenue authorities and erection of a compound wall on the defendant's own land did not amount to disturbance of the plaintiff's peaceful possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Apr-2026
Disposed
District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge
-
28-Apr-2026
Arguments
District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge
-
17-Apr-2026
Arguments
District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge
-
07-Apr-2026
Arguments
District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge
-
02-Apr-2026
Arguments
District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge
-
27-Mar-2026
Arguments
District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Arguments
District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge
-
06-Mar-2026
Arguments
District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge
-
13-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Judge - 2 and Additional Session Judge
-
30-Jan-2026
Arguments
District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge
-
09-Jan-2026
Arguments
District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge
-
05-Dec-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge
-
17-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
14-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 116/2025
Case Summary: MCA 116/2025 Court Decision: The District Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the trial court's rejection of the temporary injunction application. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience for granting temporary injunction. Key Reasoning: The court held that while the defendant's property field number was changed from Gat No.146/2 to Gat No.146/1 through a mutation entry sanctioned by competent authority, this change alone did not constitute illegal conduct requiring injunction. The court found no material evidence showing the defendant was actually obstructing the plaintiff's possession or illegally attempting to grab the plaintiff's suit property. Mere measurement of the defendant's property by revenue authorities and erection of a compound wall on the defendant's own land did not amount to disturbance of the plaintiff's peaceful possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts