Arjun Dhumal vs Dhanaji Dhumal Advocate - Jadhav Vikas K — 497/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130005852017
Next Hearing
10th July 2026
Filing Number
800/2017
Filing Date
27-06-2017
Registration No
497/2017
Registration Date
28-06-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
5-4th Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Arjun Dhumal
Adv. Kajale R.B.
Respondent(s)
Dhanaji Dhumal Advocate - Jadhav Vikas K
Mohan Dhumal
Rajabhau Dhumal
Popat Barangule
Dilip Barangule
Vilas Barangule
Somnath Thorat
Ankush Doifode
Akshay Doifode
Dhanaji Doifode
Janardhan Barangule
Hearing History
Judge: 5-4th Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Evidence
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Issues |
| 22-01-2026 | Issues |
| 03-11-2025 | Issues |
| 25-08-2025 | Issues |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 497/2017 Outcome: Petition DISMISSED Arjun Dhumal's petition for urgent interim relief regarding agricultural land possession was dismissed. The court found that while Dhumal established ownership and possession of the disputed plot (Gat No. 260/8b), he failed to prove that respondents were actively trespassing or obstructing his peaceful enjoyment of the property with sufficient evidence. Despite complaints filed with police, no concrete proof of ongoing encroachment was produced. The court ruled against granting the requested interim injunction, as Dhumal could not demonstrate the balance of justice favored him or that irreparable harm would occur without relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 497/2017 Outcome: Petition DISMISSED Arjun Dhumal's petition for urgent interim relief regarding agricultural land possession was dismissed. The court found that while Dhumal established ownership and possession of the disputed plot (Gat No. 260/8b), he failed to prove that respondents were actively trespassing or obstructing his peaceful enjoyment of the property with sufficient evidence. Despite complaints filed with police, no concrete proof of ongoing encroachment was produced. The court ruled against granting the requested interim injunction, as Dhumal could not demonstrate the balance of justice favored him or that irreparable harm would occur without relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts