Shital Kakasaheb Gund vs Kakasaheb Nivrutti Gund — 709/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 36. Status: Reply/Say. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130008232024
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
e-Filing Number
19-11-2024
Filing Number
852/2024
Filing Date
22-11-2024
Registration No
709/2024
Registration Date
22-11-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shital Kakasaheb Gund
Adv. GUND SHEETAL KAKASAHEB
Respondent(s)
Kakasaheb Nivrutti Gund
Hearing History
Judge: 3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 13-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 01-01-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 28-11-2025 | Reply/Say |
| 06-11-2025 | Reply/Say |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 709/2024 Court: 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Barshi, Solapur District, Maharashtra Parties: Shital Kakasaheb Gund (Petitioner) v. Kakasaheb Nivrutti Gund & Others (Respondents) Outcome: The petition for temporary injunction was DISMISSED. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) a prima facie case, (2) balance of convenience in her favor, and (3) irreparable harm. While the petitioner claimed shared ancestral agricultural property rights and alleged respondents were attempting unauthorized sale, insufficient documentary evidence was provided. The court noted respondents' names did not appear in official revenue records as co-owners, and the petitioner failed to prove imminent property transfer or establish legal entitlement to the injunction. Date: 12 June 2025 This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 709/2024 Court: 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Barshi, Solapur District, Maharashtra Parties: Shital Kakasaheb Gund (Petitioner) v. Kakasaheb Nivrutti Gund & Others (Respondents) Outcome: The petition for temporary injunction was DISMISSED. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) a prima facie case, (2) balance of convenience in her favor, and (3) irreparable harm. While the petitioner claimed shared ancestral agricultural property rights and alleged respondents were attempting unauthorized sale, insufficient documentary evidence was provided. The court noted respondents' names did not appear in official revenue records as co-owners, and the petitioner failed to prove imminent property transfer or establish legal entitlement to the injunction. Date: 12 June 2025 This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts