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

Reply/Say

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 36

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

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

12-06-2025
Order on T.I.

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case