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

Reply/Say

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

Specific Relief Act Section 34, 38

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

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

27-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Malshiras All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case