Chand Badshaha Deshmukh vs Hasan Farid Shaikh Advocate - Kulkarni J. M. — 122/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO070001402018
Next Hearing
20th June 2026
Filing Number
145/2018
Filing Date
05-03-2018
Registration No
122/2018
Registration Date
06-03-2018
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur
Judge
6-2nd Jt. CJJD and J.M.F.C. Pandhaprur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Chand Badshaha Deshmukh
Adv. Deshmukh Madhavrao R
Respondent(s)
Hasan Farid Shaikh Advocate - Kulkarni J. M.
Bibhishan Narhari Pawar
Hari Namdeo Kadam
Adv. Bahirat B. A.
Hearing History
Judge: 6-2nd Jt. CJJD and J.M.F.C. Pandhaprur
Evidence
List of Witness
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | List of Witness |
| 07-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 24-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 07-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS No. 122/2018 Plaintiff Chand Badshaha Deshmukh sought a temporary injunction to restrain Defendant No.1 from creating third-party interest in ancestral property (gat no. 65/1 1H 0R land) pending suit for specific performance. The court rejected the application, finding that while plaintiff established a prima facie case, he failed to demonstrate irreparable loss or favorable balance of convenience, as he provided no concrete evidence of the defendant's specific actions to transfer the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS No. 122/2018 Plaintiff Chand Badshaha Deshmukh sought a temporary injunction to restrain Defendant No.1 from creating third-party interest in ancestral property (gat no. 65/1 1H 0R land) pending suit for specific performance. The court rejected the application, finding that while plaintiff established a prima facie case, he failed to demonstrate irreparable loss or favorable balance of convenience, as he provided no concrete evidence of the defendant's specific actions to transfer the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts