Mukund Masa Ovhal vs Suman Dagadu Chandanshive Advocate - Gaikwad Rajkumar S — 198/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO070009772014
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
255/2014
Filing Date
24-04-2018
Registration No
198/2018
Registration Date
25-04-2018
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pandhurpur
Judge
6-2nd Jt. CJJD and J.M.F.C. Pandhaprur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mukund Masa Ovhal
Adv. Chandanshive Priyadarshan P
Respondent(s)
Suman Dagadu Chandanshive Advocate - Gaikwad Rajkumar S
Hearing History
Judge: 6-2nd Jt. CJJD and J.M.F.C. Pandhaprur
Evidence
Additional Issues
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 25-03-2026 | Additional Issues |
| 13-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 09-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 20-02-2026 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
Summary: RCS Case 198/2018 Petitioner Mukund Masa Ovhal sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from creating third-party interests over agricultural property (gat no. 104, 0H 79R), claiming an oral sale agreement from 2000 for Rs. 20,000 with partial payment and possession already transferred. The court rejected the application, finding that while the plaintiff established a prima facie case, he failed to demonstrate irreparable loss or that the balance of convenience favored him, as no concrete evidence of imminent third-party transfer was shown. The matter proceeds to full trial on the underlying specific performance suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: RCS Case 198/2018 Petitioner Mukund Masa Ovhal sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from creating third-party interests over agricultural property (gat no. 104, 0H 79R), claiming an oral sale agreement from 2000 for Rs. 20,000 with partial payment and possession already transferred. The court rejected the application, finding that while the plaintiff established a prima facie case, he failed to demonstrate irreparable loss or that the balance of convenience favored him, as no concrete evidence of imminent third-party transfer was shown. The matter proceeds to full trial on the underlying specific performance suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts