Tanaji Alat vs Ankush Bodhale Advocate - Patil Anil Raghunath — 450/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130004992017
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
710/2017
Filing Date
08-05-2017
Registration No
450/2017
Registration Date
09-06-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Tanaji Alat
Adv. Zalte Rahul T
Respondent(s)
Ankush Bodhale Advocate - Patil Anil Raghunath
Sitaram Bodhale
Suresh Bodhale
Hearing History
Judge: 3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 04-12-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. 450/2017 (Tanaji Alat v. Ankush Bodhale Advocate & Others) The court granted an interim injunction in favor of petitioner Tanaji Alat regarding disputed land (Gat No. 1/2, 1 hectare 72 are) at Dhamangaon, Barshi. Though defendants admitted plaintiff's ownership and possession under a 2011 compromise decree, they obstructed his possession in May 2017. The court found plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored him, and obstruction would cause irreparable loss. Defendants' technical objections (non-joinder of parties, boundary discrepancies) were deemed without merit. The order temporarily restrains defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession until suit disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. 450/2017 (Tanaji Alat v. Ankush Bodhale Advocate & Others) The court granted an interim injunction in favor of petitioner Tanaji Alat regarding disputed land (Gat No. 1/2, 1 hectare 72 are) at Dhamangaon, Barshi. Though defendants admitted plaintiff's ownership and possession under a 2011 compromise decree, they obstructed his possession in May 2017. The court found plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored him, and obstruction would cause irreparable loss. Defendants' technical objections (non-joinder of parties, boundary discrepancies) were deemed without merit. The order temporarily restrains defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession until suit disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts