Budhiman Sadashiv Thite vs Vivekanand Sahadhiv Thite Advocate - Nayaku Dnyaneshwar Nana — 547/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO070006652025
Next Hearing
22nd June 2026
e-Filing Number
06-11-2025
Filing Number
734/2025
Filing Date
06-11-2025
Registration No
547/2025
Registration Date
13-11-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur
Judge
1-JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. PANDHARPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Budhiman Sadashiv Thite
Adv. DESHMUKH DATTA SHIVAJI
Pallavi Budhiman Thite
Adv. DESHMUKH DATTA SHIVAJI
Harshavardhan Budhiman Thite
Adv. DESHMUKH DATTA SHIVAJI
Respondent(s)
Vivekanand Sahadhiv Thite Advocate - Nayaku Dnyaneshwar Nana
Rukmini Sadashiv Thite
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. PANDHARPUR
Evidence
Evidence
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 01-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 09-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 27-02-2026 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
Summary of R.C.S. No. 547/2025 The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants (the brother and mother of plaintiff No. 1) are restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs' possession of agricultural property (Gat No. 740/A) in village Bhose, Solapur, or preventing them from cultivating and harvesting sugarcane crops until final disposal of the suit. The court found the plaintiffs had established prima-facie possession through valid sale-deed, 7/12 extracts, and evidence of ongoing cultivation, while defendants failed to prove joint possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of R.C.S. No. 547/2025 The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants (the brother and mother of plaintiff No. 1) are restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs' possession of agricultural property (Gat No. 740/A) in village Bhose, Solapur, or preventing them from cultivating and harvesting sugarcane crops until final disposal of the suit. The court found the plaintiffs had established prima-facie possession through valid sale-deed, 7/12 extracts, and evidence of ongoing cultivation, while defendants failed to prove joint possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts