Abhimanyu Prahlad Yewale vs Bhishmacharya Babruwan Manjre — 691/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 04th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130008222025
Next Hearing
04th July 2026
e-Filing Number
04-09-2025
Filing Number
869/2025
Filing Date
08-09-2025
Registration No
691/2025
Registration Date
08-09-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Abhimanyu Prahlad Yewale
Adv. JADHAVAR SHIVAJI RAMCHANDRA
Respondent(s)
Bhishmacharya Babruwan Manjre
Kripacharya Babruwan Manjre
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 10-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 13-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 06-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 06-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case 691/2025 Summary: Petitioner Abhimanyu Prahlad Yewale sought urgent interim relief against respondents Bhishmacharya and Kripacharya Manjre for illegally constructing RCC pillars and 4-5 feet high walls on his property's eastern boundary, blocking his eastern passage. The court issued a show-cause notice requiring respondents to explain why an interim order should not be passed against them, while refusing to grant one-sided relief without hearing the respondents. Special bailiff and expedited process were permitted if necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 691/2025 Summary: Petitioner Abhimanyu Prahlad Yewale sought urgent interim relief against respondents Bhishmacharya and Kripacharya Manjre for illegally constructing RCC pillars and 4-5 feet high walls on his property's eastern boundary, blocking his eastern passage. The court issued a show-cause notice requiring respondents to explain why an interim order should not be passed against them, while refusing to grant one-sided relief without hearing the respondents. Special bailiff and expedited process were permitted if necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts