Rajvardhan Lakshaman Nikam vs Shivaji Ganpat Dongare — 127/2026
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34, 38. Status: Reply/Say. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO110004872026
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
e-Filing Number
16-02-2026
Filing Number
151/2026
Filing Date
16-02-2026
Registration No
127/2026
Registration Date
16-02-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Malshiras
Judge
3-Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajvardhan Lakshaman Nikam
Adv. KADAM PRASHANT NARAYAN
Ramesh Balbhim Dongare
Adv. KADAM PRASHANT NARAYAN
Sitaram Balbhim Dongare
Adv. KADAM PRASHANT NARAYAN
Satyabhama Dilip Dongare
Adv. KADAM PRASHANT NARAYAN
Respondent(s)
Shivaji Ganpat Dongare
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class
Reply/Say
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Reply/Say
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 27-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 25-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 24-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 13-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
Case 127/2026 - Summary Defendant No. 1 (Shivaji Ganpat Dongare) sought a stay of the court's temporary injunction order granted in favor of the plaintiffs (Rajvardhan Lakshaman Nikam and others), claiming he would suffer irreparable loss due to lack of road access if the stay was not granted. The court rejected the application, holding that the injunction is purely prohibitory in nature and does not require execution or impose actionable burdens on the defendant, making his claims of loss illusory. The court noted that granting stay would defeat the purpose of the injunction by permitting alteration of the existing status quo. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 127/2026 - Summary Defendant No. 1 (Shivaji Ganpat Dongare) sought a stay of the court's temporary injunction order granted in favor of the plaintiffs (Rajvardhan Lakshaman Nikam and others), claiming he would suffer irreparable loss due to lack of road access if the stay was not granted. The court rejected the application, holding that the injunction is purely prohibitory in nature and does not require execution or impose actionable burdens on the defendant, making his claims of loss illusory. The court noted that granting stay would defeat the purpose of the injunction by permitting alteration of the existing status quo. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts